HomeMy Public PortalAbout1988 PC MINUTESBEAUMON'T PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JANUARY 19, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, January 19, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Pdeeting was called to Order at 7:00 P.M.
On Roll Call, the Eollowing commissioners were present:
Co:imissi.oners Bruner, Schuelke, Tngr.ao, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
Attorney Ryskamp was also present at this meeting.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Approval of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
December 15, 1987, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report:
CDD Koules reported on the building activity taking place at
6th and Beaumont - cosmetic work only and no additions or
structural alternations. Driveway is to be moved over to
the west 201.
He addressed the concern that Commission Ingrao had
pertaining to the paving and commented that in the future,
they will look more closely when paving streets; however,
there is no corrective measure to be taken for the streets
already paved.
Further, he addressed the commission commenting that the
Citv Council at their meeting of January 11, 1988, did adopt
the Parking Ordinance with some modification. The City
Council deleted the reference to off - street parking allowed
on an adjacent lot or a lot 150 to 200' away from the
property. The reason for the deletion was the issue that
was rai.seO. by staff, that this could allow for the
conveyance of an adjacent lot and then the City of Beaumont
would be without any of the .required off- street parking.
F,ttorney Ryskamp noted that in the parking ordinance draft,
evervwhere the concept of an adjoining lot or a lot within
150' is to be removed.
CON'T PUBLIC `IEARING:
87 -PM -5, Am. #3, (PM 22620) & 87- ND -32, division of land
into 2 parcels, located at the S/G Corner of Brookside and
proceeded to ask for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Ron whi.ttier, 7111 Belaire Dr., Corona,
addressed the
commission stating: by splitting the parcels you would not
have a land lock situation; the commercial fronts along
Brookside; 11 acres is zoned R -3 high density; intention is
to down zone this high density to an R -1 subdivision from
240 lots to about 64 lots; the proposal that will be coming
in on the 11 acres of the commercial shows the road to
tract, the
s:aiggle into the tract so that the end of the
lots face right on Beaumont Avenue; gave Mr.. Koules a copy
of the map showing the configuration of the road. Further,
Mr, Whittier wanted it known for the record, that his
intention is to down zone, wants to work with the City and
that there is no reason to re -zone it is just a matter of
having an P -1 use in the density in question.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:13 P.M., turning the
r^..,:tter back to the commission for discussion.
There was lengthy discussion pertaining to the parcel being
zoned two different zonings; purpose of sale; frontage road;
city engineer's letter.
Attorney Ryskamp explained that what Mr. Dotson, City
Engineer is requesting is that he would prefer to require on
a parcel map division for those two residential lots, that
they do all of the improvements - to see all of the
improvements before the recording of this parcel map. This
would allow you to develop the residential portion without
doing the necessary improvements to run the frontage through
the commercial :parcel all the way up to Brookside and to
also deal with whatever widening and other improvements that
needs to be done on Brookside. By dividing the property you
are in effect saving the developer of the residential
project all of the improvement costs.
it was the feeling of the commission that they would like to
see what is proposed for both parcels.
Due to a request to speak again by Mr. Whittier, Chairperson
Burton re- opened the public hearing at 7:31 P.M.
Ron Whitt cr, 7111 Belaire Dr., Corona, again addressed the
commissioi commenting that: the purpose of the parcel was
initiated by the City, that they (city) wanted to clean up
what they felt was a mistake in the zoning; felt that if a
subdivision comes in on the middle piece of property, Mr:
Dotson would make a condition that the black top road would
have to go to Brookside; intention is to hold on to the
commercial property and not develop it for a couple of
years; has a builder wanting to put in a subdivision on the
11 acres; takes issue that there would be a requirement on
this subdivision.
Attorney Ryskamp commented there is no condition at this
time that requires the improvement of the road - the lower
lot would be accessible if A,merican'Eousing does in fact
p:lr, P7hittier at this time, irmh`mlwhat had
X to the time when Denny Knudsen
trans pi red going hac
sub;nitted the application and maps.
Chairperson Burton ,g3en -then the
the- omatter puback to the
at 7.43 P.M.,
commission.
CnD ICoulcs commented that if the intention is to develop lit
the lower half in high density residential, then a lot Split
probably would be the cleaner way to go-
There was much discussion pertaining to improvements and the
Thor b a sale of the property with Chairperson Burton
commenting that by adding another condition that if Parcel 2
3,vc,�,ce before Parcel 1, then the frontage road shall be
completed all the wav through to F..rooksi.de. CDD Y,oules
noted that. it could be conditioned in a similar manner.
bu, ;hi.t:t.ier was then asked if he preferred not splitting
the parcels and going ahead with the dcvelopmportion, ]'`nwith
2, submitting the )fans for. the high density
Dir. 1'�illttJ.er dR547e ".L ng "sure".
co that that he had no problem in withdrawing
the map, that escrow had been entered into and the papers
are beig drawn ;.? to sale the 11 acres - the people that
are buyin ng it wants to put in an R -1 subdivision. Further
commented-, he had the plans ready to go and if the
like to withdraw the map he would come back
commission would l
with a subdivision plan. Mould ask the commission however,
not to condition full improvements (on commercial).
CDD Koules noted that if njrthellcommercialdparcelewould be la
wit;1 a subdivision map, p Thinks both
be a separate
part; however, it would lot.
options offer the City the improvements that is of concern.
Ron Whittier, commented that he would like to postpone this
matter the next meeting in order to give him a chance
to go over it with the CDD mr. Y.oules. Could be advantageous
to move ahead with a subdivision map.
This item was continued to the next
giving the applicant
COT,pissi.on meeting of February 2, together
an opportunity to study the project further and get
9
with staff.
Ordinance No, 653 of the City of Beaumont, repealing
Section 17.65.205 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and Cadding
to the Beaumont Punicipal Code section .17.65.205,
Landscaping Provisions.
Chairperson Burton then opened the pui�l.i.c hearing at audience
P. •• as }:ing for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak and there being none, she then closed the
public hearing at x:00 P.t'., turning the matter back to the
Comm ;.S SlOR.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao, recommending the to City
_.__, „r nrainance ido. 653 of the City Of
B7-M-8 (PD; 23086), one lot- split i.ntc) two parcels, located
at 1265 Palm Avenui" ApplLcant, Lien.
CDD ;'pules presen' c d the staff report comnlent:ing that
liclant
parcel measures 120' frontage on PaLn and 145' and app
i, nskincl that i ae split into two 60' by 145' parcels.
The proposed parcels would conform to all the lots on the
snm sicte of Palm Avenue except for the corner lots which
are a little wider.. Reasonable request and staff. recommends
approval.
Chaff r.nerson Burton then opened the public hearing at ence
p,il„ asking for. proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Ken h.ien, 3319 Avalon, Riverside, addressed the commission
cor,:lienting that he agrecs with the staff report and
recommendation.
Cd ldalker., 1259 Palm, Beaumont, addressed the commission
cormlenting that he lives lust adjacent to the lot d ears agot
the lots (according to his record) were split y
tins no objection.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 8:09 P.A9., g
matter back to the commission for discussion.
Discussion was had by the commission with a motion being
made by Commissioner Remv recommending approval of Parcel
N.ap 67 -Pi1 -8 and :4egative Declaration 87 -ND -41 by City
Council; seconded by Commissioner Schuelke. motion carried
un.amiously with the following roll call vote:
Av �: Com•^.Lss!O:lery
Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairner.son Burton.
NODS: :one.
AB£TAINT: Clone.
Ai:S ",IT: none.
Co =iss.ion recess =c't at 8:10 P.D4., reconvening at 8:22 P.M.
7 S ?ecial Study Area Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 651: City
Initiated General Plan Amendment Bit -GP -1, Rezone B8-RZ -1,
Initial Study 88 -11D -1 for those portions Of the City within
the following boundaries: From the western City limits to
Cherry Avenue, and from 6th Street to 11th Street.
PUBL'C ilE.ARING (I'iRM # 7) TRANSCRIBED VERB; %TIM;
Burton; 7e, 11 go to :agenda Item Ldo. 7. The Special City study
Iniitiated
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 651: s
-RZ -1, Initial
General Plan Amendment 88 -GP -1, Rezone 88
Study 88 -ND -1 for those portions of the City within the
CO11o}lingeboulndaries: 6toInStreetetoe11t1CilStreetits to
Shall I ask for a staff report?
1987
unlit n!;: Airi.Qht. As `�OUY COmm15BlOn }:170475 OR December 14, n
r a -e ;,r nrdinance for an
areas that encompass the areas here that are zoned
residential high donsity by Laking a line one lot deep
from the north side of 8th Street. We took a line
here's 8th Street, we took a line one lot deep more or
loss and ran it the full length up to Pennsylvania
Avenue. Then we delineated the existing commercial
along both sides of Beaumont Avenue, the existing
commercial along the north side of 6th Street and some
commerical and, industrial again on 6th Street. We
broke down the Special Stucly area into 12 subareas. o r
did this for. the ease of explanation in making
presentation. Additionally, there was some areas that
are in conflict with the general plan designation
the existing zoning is in conflict. Now State law AB
13ol requires that a general plan designation and a
zone be in conformance with one another. So when I
speak about the areas this presentation will include
will be those clean -up areas where I would like to set
the zoning and plans straight.
The first subarea runs from the easterly side of Euclid
Avenue all the way to the westerly city boundaries and to
again from that line one lot deep from the north up
alf way between
and then jogging over heen 10th and
Californ
11th, on the alley between ia and Edgar.
(You'll have to excuse my back I can't make a
this position).
presentation to everyone in ition). Within
this subarea we call Subarea It there
h are 182 lots,
h of these lots are utilized presently as multi-
24
residential lots - that is if anything -
Burton: Excuse me, is that the blue'
Koules: I'[R sorry, yes - the multi- residential lots contain as
tyro, three, four, fiver sir, unitar °elshbeingd used n as
blue. The yellow shows the P n in the
single family residences. Where there is green
this
area, that shows a vacant lot. Novi the talrey
Subarea one, w 182 lots, 25 used as multi
Subarea
9 lots vacanantnclllwant to saydit'sang estimate lbecause
estimated, previous Director,
this data was collected by otheinp ev field. I used
Valerie Beeler through survey
to form the statistical basis for the
these figures
presentation. So we estimated a number of units, in
otherwords, when we wcy there timated thato65 oftlthose in
multi- resident:i.al, Units and there is a
that represents 65 dwelling well. Now the
mobilehome nark in there as change the
staff recommendation for Subarea 1 is to residential,
general plan designation of high density du /ac and to
to low density residential which is 5
change the zoning from residential hi So that's the
du /ac to residential sing o through
proposal for Subarea I. I would like stionsg that the
these 12 subareas and answer any q
commission or the public might have.
Subarea 2 is (my eyes are failing me) is the sliver
m ne
along the west side ^of*1agnStreetvenuThat sliver l
ver is
l
. _ I ". _
over to the alley between Orange and Magnolia running
up to 11th and ending there. That area contains 76
lots, 14 arc utilized as multi residential, 5 are
vacant and 57 are single family residential. Again, we
estimate that those 14 residential lots have about 30
dwelling units on them. Here the recommendation again,
is to change the plan from high density residential to
low density residential, change the zoning from
residential high density to residential single family.
Subarea 4 is a little sliver of land (actually three
parcels) on the north side of 11th - on both sides of
Magnolia Avenue. Now this three parcel area is shown
on the general plan as low density residential.
11owever, the existing zone is high density residential.
It consists of three lots each with a single family
house on them. The recommendation is to retain - leave
the general plan designation of low density residential
but change the zoning from high density residential to
single family residential.
Subarea 5 is that block of land from the cast side of
Pennsylvania Avenue to the west side of Cherry Avenue
from what would be an extension of 9th Street to an
extension of 10th Street and within that block area
there are 8 lots. some of them are large lots and two
of the large lots on the westerly half fronting on
Cherry Avenue have units on them and I'm told that
there is about 100 units on that. There are two vacant
lots at the northwest corner of the lot and then the
remaining lots south of the vacant lots fronting on
Pennsylvania are single family. Recognizing existing
land uses, staff recommends that the westerly half of
the lot, that is those lots fronting on Pennsylvania
Avenue, be changed from general plan high density
residential to low density residential and change the
zoning from residential high density to single family
residential to conform with the land uses on the west
side of Pennsylvania Avenue_ which are basically single
family homes. And to retain the plan and zone high
residential density on the easterly half of the lot
which of course recognizes the apartment units that are
there.
Subarea 6 is the block south of the one we just talked
about - here we are talking about 11 lots, 5 shown as
multi residential, 1 vacant with a 28 dwelling unit
approval and 4 single family lots shown in yellow.
Here the recommendation is (oh, by the way the
general plan shown here as medium density residential)
16 dwelling units to the acre, we want to change that
to high density residential and change the zoning from
residential single family to residential high density.
Again, to recognize both existing land uses and it's
compatibility would be adjacent to the parcels.
Subarea 7 runs south of these two parcels. That is it
runs from the - bordering the commercial along 6th
Street up to 8th Street from Pennsylvania to Illinois
Avenue. In that area, we are talking about 21 lots, 8
. -� --- m „i, -i r. QiArntial. 9 vacant and 4 single
this
that r.nns one lot north of 3t� Street.
imatedWithin
multi
area there are 117 lots, 1 re
residential with an estimate of 78 dwelling u2 its, 25
vacant lots, 1 vacant with an app.
dwelling units and 90 single family dwelling lots.
That is lots used for single family dwellings. The
recommendation on subarea 3 would be to change the
general plan designation from high density residential
to me< ?iuri density residential allowing 16 du /ac instead
f 32 du /3c and to accori'ing change the zone from
residential high density to residential multi family
again 16 du /ac. That brings up to this area here.
Subn- c,, which runs on the west side of magnolia from
of 8th and that
the commercial up to 8th one lot north
is the strip that I mentioned earlier, is shown on the
general plan as general commercial. There are 13 lots
i.n the southerly portion of that strip, 1 is used as
aulti family, 1 is vacant: and 11 are used as single
f1amii The. zoning is rc;i.dential high density, the
proposal is to change thre elan from general commercial
to the medium density residential, to change the zoning
f.10m residential high density to residential multi
family, so that you would have a bloc.' of residential
Multi family at 16 units to the acre running from the
commercial along the eastorly from Eeaumont Avenue all
t hhe ay up to pennsylvani.a Avenue and then you would
ive t;iis high density residential here.
Getting to the other site of the commercial divider
along both sides of Beaumont ,avenue, we identified
subarea 10 as that area from the east side of Euclid
,wv,mre all the way to the westerly city limits from
again 1 lot deep on north 8th Street down to the
commercial and industrial slivers that front and curves
around 6th Street. Within this area, we counted 117
lots and of course I'm excluding institutional lots,
churches, public buildings in all the areas we're
talking about. 21 lots wore identified as being multi
residential with an estimate of 78 dwelling units. I'm
sorry, I take that back, I was reading the wrong
figures. We're talking about 96 lots within Subarea
10. 13 are blue, multi residential with an estimate of
30 dwelling units, 2 are vacant and 81 of the 96 lots
in this curved area are utilized as single family
residences. And because of that predominance of single
family residences, staff .recommendation is to change
the general plan designation from high density
residential to low density residential to change the
existing residential high density zoning to residential
single family zoning on this Subarea 10. Since we are
doing this, we want to clean up again inconsistencies
that exist within this area of concern and area of.
study. you have a sliver here of commercial on 6th
Street east of California, actually from California to
Edgar.. That is shown on the general plan as general
commercial, but the zoning is Light commercial
Planufactur.ing, so the staff recommendation i.s to keep
the general plan designation of general commercial, but
to change the zoning to general commercial to be
v_ >> "Inn_ Similarily, on some
utilizes larger lots, we t,jould not like to see the lots
built through for industrial uses in the future all the
WC1v to 7th. The commercial uses tend to utilize the
frontage along 6th Street, so I think the future
commercial
uses would tend to utilize again the
frontage. They have a different need. So I think it
would protect some of the residential integrity. In
any event, those are our recommendations and within
terms of overall f..igures of. the lots we mentioned, a
little over 70% of lots in this study area are utilized
as single family residonces. This essentially
concludes the presentation and I would be happy to try
to answer any questions that the commission has.
Burton: Oh, I'm sure there are some questions.
Y,oules : 1'es.
Burton: Starting with Commissioner Pemv.
ROOM: nuestiOil c.k., on 6th Sr_ruet where -
Burton: lahat area?
Remy: 0.k., 11 and 12, where there was the lifjht
manufacturing - at the time the general plan was done,
a lot of people that have light industry there wanc.ed
it to remain that way. 6�hat happens if that changed to
commercial - would they be unconforming?
Koules: Yes, they would be - thev'O' be legally non - conforming.
R� } hows then same time. I
but the same
peonle are still there.
Koules: t9elI all I could say is that - Mr. Ryskamp is going to
address the non - conforming land use issues as it
complies to the units as well. I believe we can assure
them that in the case of destruction because of fire,
that they would have a right to reconstruct their
buildings.
Remy: I don't know they would - do you know how their
insurance would be affected or anything like that. But
there was a question befog- and that's why it was left
to remain light industry there.
f
Burton: Commissioner Ingrao.
Ingrao: 'Hell, I was just thinking on 12, that seems to be more
light manufacturing, that is the way that area is
tending to go, that whole (I guess you would call it)
southwest.
Koules: I could see - to be honest with you it could go either
way, I was just thinking in terms of the future land
uses for the City - would like to promote the
industrial activity south of the freeway. We don't
mean to take away the utilization of the lots -
Ingrao: Well the things you've already got on there and the
town kinda dies at that point.
Burton: Excuse me - we're not going to argue with Steve about
the zoning, this is the time to ask him specific
questions about why did you - pick all of that area up
there for Subarea 1.
Ingrao: 1.9hv not.
Burton: Or that big of an area. what made you pick those
:articular areas the way you did.
Koules: well some of it is -
SChuel'r,e: How did you determine whol to draw the line around a
certain subarea.
Koules: '7e.11, you know we had to come up with something and to
meet a ninety day deadline to get this thing moving, we
had to do something, so one can always have question as
to why this line was on 2th and not on 9th, but it
doesn't take away the commission or city counciP s
ability to shift these lines around. What we've
legally advertised is all the study area, so this is -
I thin ?: the feeling here :;hy 8th was chosen, was that
we felt that at first cut, I would like to see the land
uses north of 8th retained as single family zone.
Sc!iuel;;e:
That was your thinking?
KOUles: That oras my thinking, you know - sure. But that's not
to say that the lines cannot be changed. We had to get
moving, we had ninety days and this is what we're
trying to do. I broke it into 12 areas, I think if I
came up with more, it would be a little confusing .
Schucl::C: I was just curious. I know that you have expertise in
this but I just thought maybe you had some type of
special thinking behind where to draw the line other
than the number of lots --
Koules: We 11 the thing is this, I really think that it is
Pro-per to zone and plan both sides of the street the
same. I think its proper to zone and plan both sides of
the street in the same clonsity. I don't think its
proper to have residential high density on one side of
a fnniily on the other side of the
Remy: One other question, if making the high density down at
Section 3 maybe - down in that area, does not
address the main complai.nL, t}te two story apartments
going up next to single family dwellings. Is there any
way that it could be in the multi family or zoning that
you could designate just single family apartments?
Single story pardon me.
Koules: [dell, I don't think you could do that without changing
the zoning ordinance. I think and I feel that it is
a bit awkward to have a zone that in some instances you
can build one story in that zone and other instances
you cnrr build two sr.o.ry.
Re •,;: I as just trying to figure out how we could address
Koules: is 7. am learning Title 1.7, which I'm not totally
familiar with, it's a complex document, but you do have
same latitude there, you'- setbacks do increase in the
multi family zone when it .is a two story building. You
!lave a section in the or.Ciinance that says that the
cistance between two buildings if they're two story, is
20 feet o.k., so you have vou.r setbacks increased to 10
feet from 5 feet for second story. So I think there
are things in the ordinance that can be utilized and
may l,c massaged a bit through an amendment of a
:,)articular section in the ordinance to address those
lSSU,2s. I don't think t.ili5 is the place to address - -
Burton: you said the green was vacant land?
Koules: Yes.
B,.irton: ghat is that green up there. - -
Koules: If you see green and blue together is that - -
Burton: too, go right straight up there, what is that?
r:oules: Pall-park. It better be a ballpark.
Burton: oh.
Koules: Its from 9th to 10th from Chestnut to Michigan, -so if
it isn't- a ballpark, I'd like somebody to tell -
Remv: It use to be a ballpark.
Koules: !Fell it's there - -
Remy: It's a school there.
Koules: It's a school there o.k.
Burton: I couldn't imagine -- o.k.
Burton: Commissioner Bruner.
„
if, r,n, nnawered evervthinq I (inaudible).
.; ;e�vc when - you shad -
Burton: Could we have your aQdre:;;?
sc!iiro• Oh, 726 Chestnut Avenue.
Ayskamn: I think the public is addressing the commission. medium
schiro: 0.1:. I I av0 a question for Steve. When haze zcre, with
density, when he says 16 per acre or 32 p
t:zc. laws of Beaumont that we have now with restrictions
such as setbacks that hLt has
ealllyttouga tolbuiildal� five
open space, paring, rto. ble. The
units per lot - and to make the lot app er acre
olc? homes that are on those parcelwith3hibuildings - 3
he cuts down to 3 per
a?ar.t.ments. It makes i.t real tough to sale or to
oroduce some apartments and make your payments. The
lot becomes passable at that point. The way you have
it now, 32 per acre and the laws you have that abide to
each land, it is the way to go. when you bring it down
to 16, the builder s or homeowners would just pass
the lane and go elsewhe It doesn't make it
re.
feasible. We're talking single lots here, now if you
I an acre it's a different story but the way it is
designed now, a person owns 2 lots he will get 3 per
lot. ,Ic couldn't get a loan on something like that.
It just doesn't make sense because you're (inaudible)
there is no wav you can do it. The rents in BBeaumont
is feasible to people that live in Beaumont - you can'
get outrageous rent. I disagree with Section 8. I
feel at the worse, it should be 24 per acre - and you
have to keep in mind what apartments really are. I'm
sure we all had ]rids and when the kids do leave the
house they are not gonna go and buy a home or my kids
aren't - they're gonna start somewhere - they have
artment
start with an apartment. ',then they live in apartment
in this community and they like this community bI'm isure
someday they'll buy a home in the conununity,
chase them away now by not offering them apartments I'm
doing a disjustice to the children of our area. We're
gonna lose them all and this will be 00% seeftr
citizens and we all pass away what is g onna
So we have to look out for our children and the way we
100:; out for them is to have housing for them. We have
on Chestnut, we have at 726 Chestnut - we submitted
>l on September 17th for 750 and 718. well during
this t:.r:e, the Interim of study and we. have been kinda
at hold, meanwrhilo We arc waiting for the study to be
resolved:. We had proposed five units on each
particular lot which with the setbacks and the open
space and parking it fits just: fine. If I had less I
would have more vacant .lane', and it wouldn't be feasible
to do this project - so I really fe l strongliothat we on should. at least put 24 units per
Burton: Vic schiro.
schiro: Can you catch me later.
came litre with the idea that it was a City of a lot of
dilapidated buildings. And I thought- what can I do to
try to improve it here sinew I'm going to he living in
the area. so in the ,:process of. this, I looked and I
could see low rental income on some of these
dilapidated areas - which I own quite a few of them.
And the idea - reason that T. purchased them was
becauss they were multi zoned . I use multiple zone
(inaudible) but a high density zone. Whether it is
high density or medium density makes no difference to
me. The whole idea is to take the best use for the
property and to me to have a single family and have to
rebuild at present day prices, to have to build and I
know you are not really interested in my economics, but
the economics flows on over into the communty if it
affects me it affects you, it affects everybody. For
us to put something in that would be feasible study
feasible plan for best use of each and every p arcel of
pro ?erty that I own and other people own in the area.
Now I know there is lots of residences to - this to try
to keep the community as rural as possible. Well, that
may be fine, but as the gentleman just before me stood
up, it's our children that we're thinking of not me,
not you, (well may be you ladies up here), but not the
rest of us - is to make it where it will follow in with
the future of the City of Beaumont. It either has to
go two ways - it has to regress and go backward or
maintain as an ancient City, in all due respect that's
quote un quote, or to modernize a little bit and to
enhance it with a type of buildings. I do not care for
a multiple height in buildings because in certain areas
I think it looks like a slum and all due respect to any
builder and I happen to be a builder and a developer,
I would rather see them low and stepped up so that they
look like something nice to the community. Now I can't
see the reason for the total zoning of Area 1, (upper
left corner). This happens to be where I have the
majority of the parcels of property that I wish to
develop - and that is the reason I came to Beaumont. I
see lots of other areas that might be conducive to
this, because they are already dwellings and they have
the new type homes. Very seldom will you find a
builder that will come in and buy an existing home on a
piece of property and the building is dilapidated with
the idea of the expense of destroying that building or
try to rent it out and remodel it and to try to make it
DWI for itself at today's present prices - it's
impossible. So I made a feasibility study of it myself
and I found out that I could go into the hole as much
as the ,property and when I say in the hole I could lose
yearly what normally I would be earning if it were a
multiple type dwelling. I keep using this because I'm
from Riverside. We have a little different ve.rbage
there. So in Riverside T've had the same problem of
what we call downzoning and because of this it has
come to my attention and I brought it to the attention
of Mr. Koules, that there are certain legalities
involved in this that the City of Riverside and every
other City should take into consideration and I'm sure
vour attorney knows what these things are. When you
or make your City into a t.hrrivin_ model City instead he
being something that is rust uy people my age. The
reason I sa my age, is because most people my age
Y ooc'. Ole days ". well the "good
think in "the
up and look at any structure
Ole clays" 1 "good ole
that is built and is standing today and the "g
days" the houses wouldn't Pass the inspection of
somebody that knows nothing about: building - and this
F., %that I'm trying t:o do upgrade the ar.eaooseAnthat
.now Of no other ray to c'`t ma )ecapbetter.ostudy and I
this goes through tlt.is way, Y' You folks
1[cules has done a fantastic job.
think ..r• this but there
'ilea:^ have all I'm cure parr ci- paled in
must be a more reasonable inproach to it wherry it can
acconu.todate people with v n that v mucto in and
Chin
live in this community. YOU
I3at rton
Ryskamo
Ingr ,7o
Burton:
In0ran:
Than:: you.
George, vOu want to comment on the legality?
I (inaudible) refer. to the memo
that Weaptecularlyareaa
but in any rezoning action in giving to the type of
would be legal - we're not g ig anyway shape or
activity that represents taking, Y Y
form. You can go back as far as the
case back
in 1920 and establish that the concept of the City has
a right to zone. Mr-. I:ucl:id at that time was in effect
down zoned and challenged the City's right to do that
to him and it went all the way to the United States
Supreme Court and they upheld the City's right. The
"ta};ing" type issues that we're dealing with now, we've
talked about those before deal with the City
eliminating any economically viable use. In the
particular case, it created such a stir it'll last 6
months to a year. The one to bleed pop erty. ordinance
that eliminated all uPes to the property. Y•
doesn't mean that you can't rezone the property, and in
the process there_ may be property owners who will have
raid a high price thinking they were going to
( 4naudible), multiple family units on and may take
(inaudible) but that doe:,n't mean the City owes them
anything in terms of the overall zoning.
reorge, o.k, can You define down zone to me? Are we
referring to units or valla,�?
First Of all let's keep go-tg•
0.;:. I ant to %nov; what own
t]o, doa:m is basically - :e're talking where we take it
it's less density. It's reducing it from or
residential high density to residential 321 units nttc,ythe
single family. When y going
acre for the 16 --
IngraO: Doom sometimes has a_nactually downzoningn
could call it unzoning y
- people
`tellivk: 1'es.
ti came with the sanuI intention as the gentlemen
before 1110 that. spoke. nboUt. 2 and half years, we wont
to improve the City as the same thing as a1'Yrodertelse
who comes to the community. Therefore, my property is
just behind the City hall (inaudible).
Burton: p;tlat subarea is that'?
You les: Subarea 8 and we're proposing 16 dwelling units.
Melnyk: I bought the property because the reason, it was R-3
zoned. By pure luck I come to the City Hall and I was
told I cannot build anymore (inaudible) that property
next to my property left and right looks in terrible
shape (inaudible).
Burton: Thank you. Mr. Schiro.
Schiro: My name is Vic Schiro, I live at 3680 Banbury_
Riverside. Steve looking at Section 2, No. 3
(inaudible).
Commission - chairperson, I would like to address the
areas of Section 2, Section 3 and Section 8. Using the
numbers that the City Planning Director gave us using
the rule of thumb here, we show or rather all three of
those sections have more than a 20% or 1 in 5 ratio
between single family units and excluding the lots than
sections 2 and 3 are ,hown to be low density
(inaudible).
Ingrao: Start it again. You lost nu real quick.
Schiro: 0.1:., if I can point from here, Section No. 2 --
Kou 1es
Subarea 2 is tY1e sliver f,-om the west side of Magnolia
from 8th to 17-th, Subarea 3 is the larger portion
running along the cast s.i.de of Magnolia (inaudible)
Pennsylvania from (inaudible).
Schiro: ?,00king at those two areas on the numbers that you gave
us Steve, it shows that in Section 2 we have something
near 23% or sonething less than or one and a quarter to
five multi family lot uses as g opposed to single ifamily
lot uses. What Z m t_yin to point
nercentage.
(inaudible) .
Koules: (inaudible) 21 lots are presently (inaudible).
Schiro: I have four out of seventeen.
Koules: NO not four out of seventeen, 4 out of twenty -one,
seventeen are single family (inaudible).
Schiro: 0.'k., I've figured the ratio of how many multi, how
many legal (inaudible).
1 linnudible) RECORDER NOT FUNCTIONING WELL.
calculations, there seems to be a problem between
density now and Title 17. And what I find that is,
open space, parking requirements, driveway requirements
and those type of things, so these numbers are not
aligned anv longer.. A graphic example, of something
that has gone through here would be that project that I
don't );now - on 8th and Penn, where he had the ability
to put in something like 32 plus and wound up with like
22, con,orming to the open space requirements parking
requirements and those type of things so all I'm
uointing out with this statement is that we're not
longer in line between density and Title 17. And the
r.eaS0n I'm bringing this up is because now we are
s0plying R1 ?B - RMP - RMP to different sections in here,
arc in the low density whatever that was called in
other areas. But these two numbers are no longer
(inaudible), so I think we maybe should point out in
the study taht we ought to check this and see why if
the fe11o%:7 at 8th and Penn. was able to put so many
accor.Qinq to the plan, why was he really down - I think
it was something like 32, 33 and he came out with 22 -
lie lost 10. That's gonna be somewhere between 28 and
30 percent.
Sec: 26 Victor.
(inaudible).
Schiro: O.k., (inaudible) correct to say he has lost a
conservative 10 to 15 percent.
Burton: But Part of that land was zoned RSP.
Schiro: O.k.
I might point out that with talking with Valerie and I
don't know how much of it came to the commissioners, he
had hi.s 32 because there was some question as to
whether (inaudible) in the open space requirements and
other recniirements - -
Burton: But it tva the conformity of his lot and what cut him
doc,m was that that little back portion was zoned RSP.
Schiro: 0.;:.
well I would ask, madam chairperson, that we look at
the lines now between our. Title 17 and our density
because we've modified them and I imagine that
Resolution 653 has modified Title 17 even more by
removing some of that and adding in more information.
I'd like to talk about (again I'm trying to keep my 3
minutes here) second story restrictions. I think and I
recall from studies the requirement of (inaudible) in
particular that's said 'how much land do I own above my
house." The question was, the problem was airplanes
were flying over this guys house. They wanted to know
do I owl, this from here to the star constellation
(inaudible) or do I own it to a particular level. As I
m� r. rhia case it was somewhere in the 30's they
Ingrao: ,,here are you going to.
Schiro: What I'm trying to get to the part of the restriction
of the second story in RHD. I heard the mention of
second limitations and requirements up around Palm I
guess between 12th and 14th Street. The thought is are
we talking about
Burton: .do we didn't sav that - I ask if there were CC &R's
designating that there has to be two story. And there
is a CC &R (inaudible) on that vacant land - that is any
home that is built must be two story. That goes with
the land.
Schiro: o.k., what I'm leading madam chairperson is against the
idea of single story requirements. The thought of
single story to multi family would also apply then -
Burton: Ue're not even contemplating that - this is merely a
:one change.
Schiro: o.k., but I'll go on. statistically because I like
getting statistics, we show that just to bring this
small fact, I think it was really was brought up by a
lot of people and most of the homes are older. The
census in 1950 pointed that before 1960 40.5% of the
homes were - older than 1960. It also showed that
there was about 3% :acvelopr.cnt per year from about 1950
on development as we went along. Again, trying to
point out the idea of - I think that when we realign
our numbers between density and Title 17, maybe we can
take that 16 that is in RMP' and raise it. Because
looking at a small .lot that I believe that are on Palm
as I remember looking over the maps, they're defined as
small. lots - small in death and I think on Maple on.
we get into lots that are 150 and less than 150. When
we tall: about lot size to the density of 16 we've now
restricted those developments (the smallest) to about 2
units and gone over (inaudible) Pennsylvania and that
type of area and allowed development to be you know the
full 16 or so. What I'm trying to get to is the idea
that most lots have a tendency to be less than two -
tenths of an acre.
Rem-: Not here they don't.
Schiro: e7ell my lot on Palm Avenue Mrs. Remy was .22 of an acre
and that lot was 60 x 150 - I know the lots on Maple I
believe were smaller titan that so that leaves me to
believe that the lots on Maple would be .21. I know my
lots on Chestnut are between 2.3 and 2.4 long - on the
normal lot 60 x 170. So I see that these numbers are
sub the .25 that we need to put at least four units on
a lot.
Remv_: Set out to Michigan and Pennsylvania (inaudible).
Vv own lot is - -
Burton: But that is all zoned RSP.
think they really get large - one lot was like 300 feet
deep.
Remy: They are all different sizes.
Schiro: Right. I think let's be fair and say o.k., Mr.
somebody on Maple, you have the option to build at
least four units on your lot. The thought saying "your
lot could house four units" if it can, using the
density against the Title 17 if that is what we can
find in the study, because we can allow that, then I
think we have to move that 16 up. I feel the 16 should
be only about 21 - 22, not 16 and not 32, but I feel
that it works out somewhere between 21 and 23 units per
acre.
Burton: I don't have anymore requests to speak. Do we have
anyone else? Mr. Rouse.
Rouse: I would just like to have one minute.
Burton: 0.11.
Rouse: I'm Prank Rouse again. I have a proposal that might be
worth some consideration with this commission, and that
is this. That this City needs revenue. Now in making
a change to single family you're gonna limit your
revenue to a much smaller amount. But to work up some
kind of a thing with a spot zoning, and I know certain
people hate to hear this spot zoning cause it means a
lot of extra work.
Burton: It's illegal to spot zone.
Rouse: O.k., we won't call it spot zoning - we'll call it
architectural control - now if you have an
architectural control in here - if you had a
architectural control as to the design of the buildings
and could have the people that put in or the builders
or the developers or developers that were building a
low density in this area in here would have to bond a
little more than what they would normally do to help
off -set the extra services necessary in your City and
that seems to be the major problem - the services right
today are not adequate to take care of the City. This
seems to be - the only thing that I can find - can see,
is why we're going to a single family - single family
building. Dlow if you had a high density, with a higher
amount of money that was agreed by all builders to put
up - to help out (inaudible) to pay for these things
with a strict architectural control instead of some of
the multi story buildings that are going in right now
that Tool: like something out of a ghetto - now that is
my own words -• that is what they do with their boxes
with a lot of loops on the outside, the porches aren't
wide enough, they are not adeuuate, they won't even
pass some of the safety codes or the fire codes in
other cities and have strict architectural control and
design - you might find it might be a fair approach to
this and be reasonable to everybody.
and we're not losing all of it because we are retaining
some of it and some of it we're going to medium density
of 16 du /ac., that would still leave 342 of residential
high density in the City of Beaumont. Now 342 acres of
high density built out at its theoretical potential of
32 du /ac /., (I realize that is a theoretical potential)
would give you 11,000 dwellings units. So I think that
there certainly is enough residential high density land
on the books that can be developed as such. The
cuestion of it becoming one community character around
this area - -
Burton: if there is 11,000 units for that amount of acreage,
would not net out to that.
Xoules: I said it is theoretical - -
Burton: Sight.
Xcules: But even if you take half of that you still have a lot
of dwelling units.
Burton: But let's don't throw out 11,000 figure - -
'foules: 6•iell that's what - - that - -I said in my comment that
that is a theoretical feeling. But that is why we're
changing the density - that zone of 32 du /ac /., should
never been put in the City of Beaumont - because of the
theoretical figure - so let's change that and whichever
direction we're going. But even if you take those 342
acres at a density half that dense of 16 du /ac., you're
still talking about 5 1/2 thousand dwelling units. So
I think that might put some perspective - hopefully.
Burton: Is there anyone else wishing to speak. Is it new
information?
Schiro: Vince Schiro. (inaudible) you know this new proposal
that lie has (inaudible) why don't we do this? Why
don't we say this? That people that have projects that
are in the midst of projects you have 90 days to
complete your project and from that point forward this
is the law of the land. At least give us (inaudible)
of what we're doing instead of just shutting us down
completely - let us try to finish it within a small
amount of time. This way everyone would be happy. How
does that sound? (inaudible).
Schiro: We have two sets of plans on Chestnut Avenue at 750 and
718 which were put in September 17th. At that point we
weren't - when she did accept our plans, wasn't aware
of the study so after the plans in - we bought the land
and we're kinda stuck in the middle of this - it would
just give us a little bit of time to solve it - would
be done. (inaudible) other people that bought land at
least they would have an opportunity also.
Schuelke: Can I ask you Mr. Schiro to clarify what you're
proposing is that - to allow you to go ahead and
>,i w;rh vour apolication for the projects and to
But if we can correct these problems and re- submit our
plans that are in the planning office wwithincaa
continue. I'm sure we can correct our part process it
wee): and I'm sure whatever it takes your
would be over. I wouldn't even.need 90 days.
Schuelke: Except that it's that area where you're going to build
is effective of somewhat of a downzone. You may have
more units on your plan than maybe will be allowed.
Schiro:
Schuelke:
Schiro:
Schiro
yes - exactly. But here is our proposal, could I get
five units and meet all of your restrictions. I coulWe
not - no I could not. When we bought the propery
it was
bought it as high density, submitted our p
high density - up until the point that it was at the
planning committee meeting (inaudible) and said you
can't do this. We were unawal_'e of the situation - that
the study was going on.
That is what I wanted to clear - that you were saying
to let you proceed so I thought prehaps in looking at
what staff's recommendation so far is, that the plans
y
ou have were still in compliance with no matter
say
you then
we did accept staff's recommendation y would
be able to build your five units.
Schuelke:
Schiro:
Burton:
Schiro:
Sight. No I would not'. A'o ..1 would not.
}Iis proposal is as of today, when I submitted the plans
(inaudible) September (inaudible) when I submitted the
olans we went by the laws then then. I really feel
that if we had 90 days, I think (inaudible) half way
involved. in this . would restrict a new person from
doing it (inaudible) but we could tie up all our loose
ends.
We haven't accepted staff's proposal he is just
recommending that to us at this time. There is still a
lot of discussion - you know - what changes will be
made - the way they'll be made, go strictly with
staff's recommendations, it just depends on a lot of
analysis still.
I agree, but it wouldn't be fair to the people
fa a ttare
involved - that's what I'm saying.
way down the road - if we're driving a car 55 miles an
hour and we get pulled over for a ticket and the police
-says well the speed limits is 45 - what do - you
sign eaupits
45 well we forget to put the post t is all said and
exactly what's happening.
done hey wait a minute we have a study going on. it
just wasn't brought to our attention at that point.
O.k.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this.
rdy name is Victor Schiro - this is a quick explanation
of what my brother was talking about. Two committees
lived next door to each other - Alhambra and Monterey
park_ What happened there was all ytheTinndustries -
They said yes G months this was March had until
that the City Council approved
October 1st they gave the whole September.
October
So what it meant was everybody had to get had to have
by the 1st part of August because they and all before
their - go through the City Planning
that October 1st deadline - cause from October 1st on
then it was down to a lower number of units Per. I
just wanted to pass on more technical information of
what that was all about.
Burton: Thank you. Now
is there anyone wishing to speak on
this subject cause I'm going to close the public
hearing and I'm not going to re -open. So if you have
anything to say, please say it now or forever hold your
peace.
eman said it right,- and a fair one.
Audience: I think the gentl
Burton: If you would like to speak, come up and give us your
name and. address.
Burton: Closed the public hearing at 9:25 P.M. And now fellow
'rn. which end do I want to
commissioners ith our new commissioner
start - let's start w
(inaudible).
Bruner: I just have to do a lot more studing on this. I don't
have anything in particular (inaudible).
Burton: o.k., mxs. Schuelke.
Schuall:e: decisionm on tfollowingestaff ['serecommendation or make
not
following staff's recommendation, but I would like to
bring some thoughts to mind again stating and repeating
what a couple of the people in the said - that main
there are some areas already with
concern was was where big was small lots and then buildings among
they were building great 9
the single family residences. But then we've not had a
project really come before us even the Schiro's since
we did the changes to Title 1 so it is true sthat Title
17 did cure a lot of the
the problem as far as how many units to those small
lots someone could build because the open p all
requirement, the unobstr.uction from the second story
over. the driveways - those kind of things just le could
tool: care of lowering how many apartments people
build. Title 17 the changes that we just
just recently took care of some of the p so
problems from so
further lower the number. of units - let's say
down to 24 - sorieone still needs to meet those
requirements and they still end up with less lots in mind
that is just a thought I just wanted us to keep
that we do have some change in density just due to
I would like at the end that when we
those changes.
say that it is so many units to the acre, I wuirements
was a way that after considering all thoseTreq when you
that the number ends the same - equal. I) inits to the
the current requirements. (inaudible).
Schuelke: Because of the uniqueness of the shape of the lot and
it being a corner lot and (inaudible).
(inaudible).
Rsykamn: When you talk about residential high density and the
number of units per acre you are thinking the ideal
circumstance is a large lot such as the second parcel
of Mr. Whittier's project where we are dealing with 11
acres and there he has the ability to arrange the open
spaces and other anemities in such a way that lie can't
get those 32. The ideal concept to match these little
lots with that high density and have the requirements
come out ideal, I don't think is realistic - really
vou're looking at -
Schuelke: ido, but as we were going through those changes, many
comments were made - now, if this change were to take
plane you wouldn't see - they would not be able to do
such as they did in this particular area on this
particular lot. And so therefore, that change was
agreeable to evervone. And there was a lot of that
when those changes to Title 17 were made.
Ryskamp: I have no doubt that ,'that was the reason those changes
were made was to try to curtail some of the violations
in this area (inaudible).
Sc`.iuelke: And the finger was pointed at many of the projects that
were already existing at the time we made those
changes to Title 17.
Remy: There is another problem too - (inaudible).
Schuelke: The other problem if S may Ethel - she will get to you
in a little bit Ethel - the other point that was
brought up that was a very good point is I agree
totally that a lot of the problem that we have here in
our City is - yes there are some areas that drastically
need to change o.k., lower densities - I am not
agreeable exactly the way you've got it here but then
like Mr. Koules explained. we have the option of
changing it around and looking at it a little
differently. He did so well at laying out a plan to
start with where I. know that I wouldn't have had the
capability of even beginning - you know - knowing where
to begin, but a point was brought up I think by Mr.
Rouse that one problem that we do have here, I believe,
is cuality of design and architecture. If we have to
(inaudible) our codes on how some of these projects
were to be built, we may see a different - you know -
(inaudible) that what we .see now that is dense. From
there I think my other comment that I would like to
make is that I world like to see--us take if we're able
to take the approach of taking an leaving the subareas
like they are but then working within the subareas and
maybe taking a smaller portion of a certain subarea and
looking at it block by block because each block is
_._I__ mL.,w .- *l,. annrnAnh that
Remy: Apartments in the high density zone -
Schuelke: NO matter how many -
is that what you're saying
Ethel.
Remy:
(inaudible). Don't you remember -
Schuelke: But if it is zoned high density Ethel -
he In high density tandmlthenmwhichever ha building site area
(inaudible) is be
Remy: 1360 sq. ft.,
So - there are very few
minimum of 70 feet in width.
70 foot wide lots in the study area - they are all 60
feet or. less. on page 51 (inaudible) revised in June
87.
(inaudible) COMMISSIONERS ALL TALKING AT ONCE.
Ingrao: If that is true, we zoned an area that is not capable
of that zoning.
Schuelke: Yeah - that's right - that's what my thinking the same.
Then why have that - -
Burton:
Ingrao:
I don't think there is any 70 foot — well because
these lots were all created before this went
effect.
But if that is true - (inaudible) but those lots
zoned for a capability that it cannot meet.
(inaudible - commissioners all
now
into
were
Schuelke: They are zoned RHD
talking).
Remy:
It's multi family, yes, they can build on this multi
family but they can't build in RHD and this of
effectively what Steve has done - he has changed a lot
of this to multi family so they can build you know - a
couple of units on them anyway.
Burton: You have a comment George?
How about you Mr. Ingrao?
Ingrao: Yeah - I'd like to disagree with some of the people
that have spoken about
old houses and
of
what they prop le of
the City. 2 was fortunate enough to live in a coup
communities that was like this and went through a total
change - takes time and I call it upgrading
downzoning, there are examples of it in Beaumont right
now - you can take specific areas where there are run-
down houses, dumps whatever you want
new touscalbuiltem,
houses that have been torned down, to
new standards, old houses feel if
appearance maintain the old app earance
given time the City will do that.-
are going People
takehave
careenough
of
pride in their property, they g g to
it. And I think if multi units come in - it's not
going to happen. They are going to be forced out and
�.. .,. ...eA Anwn -
coming in here from out of the they
area, orange county area and we
Ingrao: (inaudible) people think - God I got a
from the L.A. Ve got a nice
are getting buys out here and they they
house for $50,000. (inaYadede). - they didn't put four
house. They have he upgrading
units on the lot. They are not worried about eal
the value of the property for their personal wealth.
is much I don't agree with in that within the
Burton: There
But I would like to make one significant
B
study axed• now '[ understood that the reason that
so
point (inaudible) _ this study was there was
we were doing this area single
much opposition to building on these - next to q
family housing - apartment buildings and new zoning -
that it was high density and they were living want an
to a single family house and they didn't not
apartment - take the case of Mr. & Mrs. (inaudible) Is
back yard, but I don't have anybody here that in
in my body has been
in favor of this zone change. Every
opposition to changing the zone that we have now.
Everybody that has spoken - now I don't know if there of
is anybody else out in the audience IS didn't favor
changing the zone (inaudible) ehas been in opposition
anybody.
Everybody that spoke
to changing our zoning.
Ingrao: Another thing they are all from out of the area.
Burton: Well, the point is even if they are out of the area,
the people that are living in this area (inaudible)
that has really been pushing for this zone Chang
this study that live right
iimeteonn orewhatever toaucome
- they don't have
ereenough Mrs.p McMillian she gave us a
down here.
petition.
Remy: it went to Council.
Burton: It starts at the Planning Commission.
I don't know what to tell them but that is our law.
Ingrao: We've got a petition here Patti.- -
we would like their ideas. I'm
�7e do have a petition "let's have your ideas
Burton: putting them down - I m saying a it carte
not p Do you want us to just Chang I
too." (inaudible). - is that what they wan t?
blanche to all single family
don't -I can't read their mind. guess
Schuelke: B e were lots of complaints about
'But the purpose for the study originated due I
several people feeling ther
Burton: night. family residences
Schuelke: Being built around their single
(inaudible).
T here - I don't: understand that.
They are not
Burton: But then Dennis you go back
elderly gentlemen he is not
looks to me to be a senior
build apartment complex, live
- I might want to do that.
Ingrao:
Burton:
Ingrao:
Burton:
Ingrao:
Burton:
Ingrao:
Ingrao:
to (inaudible) is -
a 25 - 30 year old
citizen, maybe he
I know what you are saying -
Beaumont is present - to
downzone it - that's what you
saying is - everybody that is here has spoken in
of changing it..
he is
man.
wants
in one, and have an income
an
He
to
that no body from the City of
support this moratorium or
said.
[,that I'm
opposition
P.ight.
I would like the other side (inaudible).
I would to after I hear it from other people that aren't
here - they are not here Patti.
I know.
Everybody has heard it from somebody in town - specific
examples of "God where did that come from." (inaudible).
(INAUDIBLE - COMMISSIONERS ALL SPEAKING AT ONCE).
The reason they are not here - you can't second guess
them. I did not go to the City Council meeting were they
there? George did (inaudible) opposition to retaining the
high density?
Schuelke: Did you have considerable input from the people originally
we heard there were complaints because there were all
these apartment buildings - -
Ryskamp: There were some - there tended to be primarily developers
and basically people you have heard tonight.
Ingrao: from being in the town and around different peOple - tare
are the one's that are complaining to me - why Y
not here I don't know. (inaudible) necessary for them to
make a public appearance.
Burton: (inaudible).
Schuelke: If I may madam chairman
Burton: Yes.
Schuelke: I would whether that - I feel (inaudible) we've got
complaints you know - some in writing (inaudible) and then
we have the oppositiushould wbech(inaudible). Sur
proponents and opponents -
really what it all boils down to is it is but it is going
its not like we're gonna control the City
to be up to us to really anaits p it toathemswhyythey are
therefore, my suggestion is - its be approaching
not here, and we can only do our best job decisions
and beginning to look at4 t a,mmmn�itvsand then
as to
long enough, where
the commission three times in
Because I've sit on robably
Schuelke: we've been through zone changes y,have, been initiated by
you listen to them and
the time
live been here and they
e of complaint and so Y you begin to really
the same type Ze it and then when yout then when you
you begin to analy
resent to help,
the same people come back and you
do the work no one is p
are all done with it, _ anyway.
didn't do the right thing ou what the
And there are some areas that I can tell hem (inaudible)
the madness wasitnis °Zoned commercial. I
reason behind Magnolia why
Because I'm sure You
the west side of D1m you call it
could give you some input - what Y
wonder why was that little
Burton: Sliver. in the world who
ou thought why and I
You look at that sliver y can remember Beaumont
Schuelke: _ why and one reason that I as all
did that work on that was that the lotsasldeep
Will pull my are only
venue thlotarinztown - the r1651feet deep, oned
Koules: I think the zoning is 155 feet deep .
and what was envisoned at the eredevelop
Schuelke: 155 feet deep when Beaumont Avenue to
hopefully one day that it would be and the
into a larger commercial area, line of Magnolia
back over to the westerly - course I
move of - is it Euclid Avenue on line of
easterly line I remember doing the easterly
don't know how.
now - I the
Euclid where it changed back to whatever it is
but that was the reason for.kgeWellCouldndopen
don't know, you know the commercial
land being commercial - Y for
Beaumont Avenue to commercial and do the narking
further back or build it up front
the commercial in the back. is You had that map that
You know what would be hel
full - there is a blank
Burton: ls basically
shows what the existing Your
if it could be color
ty and showing
map to your right high density
proposal - single family, helpful- density that would be real help
Schuelke: It would be interesting to see how it would look.
(inaudible). b just
probably do this on this map151dwellings to the
Koules: I could p h density because
taking some colors and making
acre and calling this residential hig
everything for the moratorium (inaudible).
Remy: YOU can do it yourself on this map u there Ethel.
Burton: well I know that but he's gotta big map p
Schuelke: Madam chairman can I ask George one question?
Let's just say we were to follow staff's
Chas what happens to the legal non-
. _ _ ___A A,wn to RS
would allow some residential un its ow to the
its forever non - conforming
right - one that is not limited by time*
extent that those properties were wouldtrevert back to
used at all for over a year they if they had the
the legal status. So I imagine
apartments vacant for a full year, then it would °with
to be legal - non - conforming. (inaudible) likely
residential property; however., commercial that does
haopen. to burn down to the ground they would
Schuelke: Now if they were
not be able to rebuild (inaudible).
Ryskamp: No - well onceOir recommendationJwould also ebe that the
(inaudible). specifically
ordinance we propose for non - conforming use dg, repair
ling,
allow for. reconstruction, than the building
reconstruction with nothing more that
And that in addition,
hermit that (inaudible) - alteration Mansion, when a
there be the Opt 1O1ermitdoesnotset requiremnts proving
conditional use p harmful impact would be
an
the need and (inaudible) Y
mitigated (inaudible).
to would recommend our
Andnon-co workingsonsthat section needs
that's something this body wants corrected, you can put
it on the next agenda along with this item (inaudible).
if it were rewritten o allow them
Schuelke: And then further., uses - therewould
continue using those non- conforming
be no consequences in the lending department and in the
insurance department for those type of buildings.
Ryskamp: I can't speak for lenders or insurance, all I can say is
that legally they would be able to rebuild e possiblelto
more than a building permit and it would be P
do alterations or expansions
Schuelke: ' .Choy still mi ght be faced with a possibility of being
rejected for financing or for insurance purposes.
Ryskamp: But that is also possible if they are building
apartments on small lots like that too. Yes (inaudible)
possible at any time.
Schuelke: Unless it is zoned - unless that small lot is zoned for
Ryskamp:
Ingrao:
(inaudible) (COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING AT ONCE).
Even if it is zoned it may not be possible to
financing on it - they might not like the project.
If he has agreed
process why would
or loaning on the
Pak to that - - there are
probably I can olic that if
companies who have vehaYblaoketWe re not going
to let him rebuild (inaudible)
they disagree to insuring the
propert?
get
permit
property
Ryskamp: There are
insurance
1
Ryskamp: It would legally. Whether that is a practical matter -
it's going to guarantee that all insurers will insure I
don't - I can't speak to that.
Burton: Well we are not going to make any decision tonight.
Ryskamp: You're all under - I'm not suggesting you should;
!ZOU'' I think you need to recognize that due to the
way that it was handled in terms o under antvery
ordinance at the council level, you're
strong mandate to complete it at the next meeting.
s two weeks to trip about
Burton: Right. But this would give u
town again.
ing with that at all. That is Z think
was a recognization
Ryskamp: I' not disagree
rt
why it was set up the way it was,
that it would take a little more time than one meeting.
Burton: Is it a violation of the Brown Act if they all went
together?
Ryskamp: ilnless you would like to continue this meeting - -
Burton: No. joining
Ryskamp: Can't provide the possibility of the public j
you. (inaudible). . . come along pointing out item by
item (i.naudible).
Burton: only Vic Schiro.
Schuel }:e: Aren't we able though to break it down into what
the
we'd like to approach first (inaudible) by
next meeting we have to have r. had ou decision on the
whole study. well at the next meeting if we are not
able to get to the other subareas are we able to
city council to extend the interim
request the
for subareas that we did not make
ordinance only
decisions on.
Ryskamp: Can you recomm would be end that - Yes•
requested realistically is it likely - Z think
apolitical statement I not
that rather - we
make, but I do know that we
felt that it should be given more time - our request
was for 6 months, the maximum that the council or at
least the one council member who was making the motion
would give was go days.
Schuell:e: I can understand (inaudible) it sure gave us a push
into getting started and outlining the areas
(inaudible) but we aren't able to -
Rvskamp: well - keep pushing - -
SchuelY.e: s!e aren't able to extend that (inaudible) again from
what I understood at the the city council meeting -
Burton: Could we release certain areas?
- --I
at the next meeting.
(inaudible).
Ryskamo: The council has given you .a mandate to make our
recommendation. I suspect if you make Will
recommendation for only parts of the areas, they
carry it from there and handle the rest of the areas as
if there was no recommendation.
Burton: well I don't know how they could do it any faster than
we can.
Schuelke: nerble) e?utosi see how much
it down our
dohe javenowbrken
meeting was cancelled the last time where we couldn't
e've got it in subareas
give any input then o.k., now wt look at the subareas whether, it is
why can we no
sequence as to the wadeci. iKouleschas inmsubareasemand
get busy in making ask request
those we can't get to at the next meeting, that you can
for. an extension. There is nc way possible
sum as they
just these l
re( inaudible )staff'srecommendation
Ryskamp: F.meline I said that very thing at the city council
meeting and the motion was made for go days.
Schuelke
Rvskamp:
Burton:
Ryskamp:
But I'm asking you now and I think - -
well I'm suggesting to you that you are asking me
political (inaudible) can we legallyextendlit
-
we have one more extension - will you get
can tell you is what happened-
(inaudible)
23rd.
it doesn't have to be decided until
NO it has to be effective March 23rd,
opened up again.
the month of February and
e first meeting in March.
for a
- yes,
all I
March
or we have it
Burton: Theoretically we could take
send it on to the council th
Ryskamp: There is a February 8th public hearing set for the
council meeting. The council had wanted the matter
completed within the go days - that was the direction
given to staff. Now once again, if you're telling me
its impossible, I would point out that the motion was
made by a council member not myself. I requested
months. can attnd
Schuelke: Can we continue this neannin
a special meeting of p g ek l
commissi n to only review
this.
Ryskamp: Yes.
Schuelke: That gives us two meetings-
- ..,.�i;� hearina and you could
Schuelke: It is our responsibility and somehow - -
Burton: Ethel can you be here at 6 o'clock instead of 7?
Remy: when?
Burton: Next Tuesday.
Remy: Why 6?
Caone of you will be able to eat. (inaudible).
ingrao: why can't we be adeque tohdo This - why do .we
(inaudible) under the gun.
Burton:
Ingrao:
Burton:
Because staff wants - -
will council come
guntandhmakee s with
us
Because that is part of being a planning commissioner
Mr. Ingrao.
have
us then.
Ingrao: Fine.
Schuelke: And we were given the 9ption of extending- -
Burton: May I remind you that you filled out the application
that you wanted to become a planning commissioner.
Ingrao: Don't push it please.
Burton: That you wanted it and you got it.
Schuelke: Do we have to reopen the public hearing in order to
continue it?
Ryskamp: No. You are not continuing the public hearing, what
you're going to have to do is call a (inaudible) this
meeting but you will have to isuover
submit a request for sp ecial
5 days and under Brown Act, Ibd�n'my have
memorythisg that
(inaudible) in January 1, Y
me to double check that, but
cannot postpone for more
than 5 days and I think it was calendar clays - that was
one thing I don't remember for certain. if in fact it
is 5 calendar days, ecial meeting with an
Tuesday you'll have to call a sp
agenda posted (inaudible) but that can be done.
Burton: (inaudible) 24 hour notice for - -
Ryskamp: we've got a 24 hour notice and then we have -
(inaudible) 72 hour posting for the agenda, in any case
we can accomplish but Ian be done . suAnd I will iverify s the
that tomorrow,
procedure we'll have to follows.
would Ingrao: councilmembereand to relayeit to the rest, of then council•
:�-M *him ;mnortant and this is effecting- soFina�y
Ingrao: Well it is just ridiculous.
Ryskamp: (inaudible) may I?
Burton: Yes.
Ryskamp: Since I was present at the meeting. Basically what it
came down to, is there was going to be what is standard
procedure according to state law a 10 month and 15 day
extension. It was proposed by Councilman Waller as I
recall that we make it 30 or 60 days - I don't remember
which it was and we said realistically we thought it
ought to take about 6 months to put together allowing
Mr. Koules to become familar with the area and he has
done a heroic job in getting together - - (inaudible)
considering he didn't know it. Well, our
recommendation was if 10 months is unexceptable because
there is a distrust why don't you give 6 months and at
the end of 90 days require a report - status that has
to be brought to the council cause the council cut off
the period at any time and upon making that request Mr.
Waller then made a motion that it be 90 days and
nothing more and made it very clear that he would vote
for nothing else. And it takes 4 votes to pass the
interim ordinance and .Mr. Shaw had already (as I
recall) departed that evening because (inaudible).
Schuelke: And prior to voting Councilman Connors ask the question
if at the 90 days we are not finished are we able to
extend the ordinance -
Ryskamp: Can we extend it once more.
Schuelke: And you said - and so on that basis you've (inaudible).
Ryskamp: Legally it can - it legally can be extended, there is
the question of course will it be.
Schuelke: It legally can't?
Ryskamp: Can be (inaudible).
Ingrao: (inaudible) you drive your car from here to here and
you've got a gallon of gas and (inaudible) and the guy
knows you're only going to get half way.
(inaudible).
Remy: Come up with a report on it (inaudible) the next
meeting or special meeting whatever as the case may be.
Ingrao: Well I don't know where everybody gets all the extra
time to go through this stuff.
Remv: I tell you I'm in the middle of taxes too, but I'm
going to do this anyway.
Burton: Well let's continue — well we'll just adjourn this
meeting and then I'll call a special meeting for next
Tuesday.
BPAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
M1NUTliS OF SPECiAL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 1988
The planning Co,riinission met in a Special Planning Commission
Meeting on Tues4ay, January 26, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with :: hairperson Burton presiding.
meeting was called to Order at 7:05 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Tngrao, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner : ?chuelke arrived shortly after roll cal]..
Attorney was Pys%amp was also Present at this meeting.
Aff.id+ivit of Porting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Sp Study Area - Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 651:
City Initiated General Plan Amendment 88 -GP -1, Rezone 88 -RZ-
1 and Initial Study 88 -ND -1, for those portions of the City
within the following boundaries: From the Western City
Limits to Cherry Avenue and from 6th St., to 11th Street.
.lttornev Rys?.anro informed the commission that the Brown Act
Jco�s mandate that there be a period allowed for open
comIM1nication from any citizen at each and every meeting.
Chairperson Burton asked if anyone :Eroni the aticlience wished
to speak either for or against Interim Ordinance No. 651:
The followiriq citizens addressed the commission:
Nancv Titus, 660 Pennsvlvania, addressed the commission as a
proponent and commented that she was representing a group of
citizens for single family.
Valerie 'Monroe, 666 California, addressed the commission as
a nrononent for down zoning.
Ron Iloff, 798 ,Michigan, addressed the commission noting his
concern of apartment housing and location.
Bill Williams, 1235 Wo.11wood, addressed the commission
s', eaking f.or the Beaumont Chamber. of Commerce noting he
wanted to eel) the area light industry as is.
Leo Gray, 290 W. 10th Street, addressed the commission
commenting that lesser units and single story would be
oetter. for Beaumont.
Frank Parrot, 655 Edgar, addressed the commission commenting
that he favors the higher density behind the commercial
general.
Ruriol h zerr, 633 E. 13th Street-., addressed the commission
iiotinq his concern as to what s going on.
TL was noted by CDD Koules that in researching the files
and going hack to September 1989, all properties
within the City of Reaumont that was zoned R -3 and was shown
on high density residential (which at that time meant 1 to
16 units to the acre) that this designation was changed to
the present high density 32 du /ac.
Cpp Konica commented that it would to agreeable on Subarea
1.1 to change the recommendation to read: Change the
cxtsting (general Plan designation of General Commercial to
Light industry and retain the existing zoning of Light
Commercial Manufacturing. On Subarea 12 we would change the
recommendation to read: Retain the existing General Plan
jos ignal.i.on of Light Industry and change the existing zoning
of Commercial Keneral. to Light. Commercial manufacturing.
The - ommi,si.on after lengthy ALncussion and consideration,
and af.tcr.- CDD Koules amended Subareas 11 and 12, the
following motions were made:
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Ingrao, recommending approval of Subareas 1 through 15, as
per staff's recomrnentations: Motion failed for lack
of a majority with the following roll call vote:
:'YES; Commissioners Remy and Ingrao.
'1OH'S: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Chalrp'rSUn
Burton.
r1liiTr -.Igj: None.
?.RSE'NT: TIone.
After discussion, it was decided by the commission that
Subareas 11 and 12 be takened out of text and voted on.
OUT OF CONTEXT:
Subarea 11:
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Bruner, recommending approval by City Council per staff's
amended recommendations for Subarea 11 for the following:
Change the existing General Plan designation of General
Commercial to Light Industry and retain the existing zoning
of Light Commercial Manufacturing. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Subarea 12:
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
-------- , i—I aInrnwAi by City Council of staff's
recommend a l- ion he a tentative recommendation and then come
back and focus on a total recouunendation and adopt the
Negative Declaration at that time.
subarea 5:
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
ngrao recommending approval by City Council per staff's
recortmenC:ation as follows:
For the westerly half of subarea 5 (parcels 001, through
On6): Change the existing General Plan designation of high
Densitv Residential to Low Density Residential (5 d.0 /ac) and
change the existing zoning fl-om R(�s.idential )sigh Density (32
(lu/aC) to single Family itesidcntia]..
1?or the easterly half. of Subarea 5 (parcels 003 and 009):
Ret<,in the xist:ing General Plan designation of High Density
Rosidential (32 (1u/aC) an(' retain the existing Residential
1!igh Density Zoning (32 du /ac).
subarea 6:
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Tngrao, recommending approval by City Council per staff's
recommendation as follows.
Change the existing General Plan designation from medium
Density [residential (16 du /ac) to High Density Residential
(32 du /ac) and change the existing zoning from Residential
Single Family to Residential high Density (32 du /ac).
;;uh_area 7:
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Tngrao, recommending approval by City Council per staff's
recommendation as follows:
Retain the existing General Plan designation of high Density
Residential (32 do /ac) and retain the existing zoning of
a.osi- dential lli_gh Density (32 du /ac). PAOtion carried
un ani;rously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner,
C'zairperson Burton.
NOES: None..
ABSTATN: None.
ABSENT: None.
schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
r,lans were then distributed to the commission by CDD Koules.
Atl:orney P.yskamp noted that the Ordinance pertaining to non-
conforming uses has been prepared and will be presented to
the commission at the next meeting in the form of a report.
Subarea
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao,�, seconded bl Cofmistaffes
ABSENT: None
1 ,. I I ( c„ ,4
on motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by
Commissioner
3runer, recommending approval by City Council then
amending
her motion per 1•1r. Ryskamp's suggestion to read:
line mic9 -way between 10th and 11th Streets
at alley
,'.un a
bcLCacen California Avenue and Edgar Avenue, south to 9th
Street, then east to the alley between Edgar.
Avenue and
Subarea
uclid avenue, run a line south to 7th Street into
to the
10, and then west to California Avenue, then
south
6th Street,
commercial zone strip along the north side of
Euclid
Avenue and
then easterly to the alley between
due
to a point
Iicaumont Avenu -, and then .run a line north
11th Street. Motion
carried with
way between 10th and
he following roll call voto,, l r. d r'''
,
AYE Conunissioners Bruner, Schuelke and
S,
Chairperson
Gurton.
Nor"S Commissioners Zngrao and Remy.
%1P.)Th7N; None.
A PS: CNT: None.
Subarea. 10:
on motion by Commissioner Zngrao, seconded by Commissioner
Remv, recommending approval by City Council - then amending
her motion per Mr.. Ryskamp's suggestion to read:
Run a line mid -way between 10th and 11th Streets at alley
ht =tween California Avenue and Edgar. Avenue, south to 9th
Street, then east to the alley between Edgar Avenue and
nto Subarea
Euclid Avenue, run a line south to 7th Street i
anti. then -rest to California Avenue, then south to the
connncrcial zone strip along the north side of 6th Street,
than easterly to the alley betcaeen Euclid Avenue and
Rcumont Avenue, and then run a line due north to a point
riid -wav I.>etween 10th and 11th Street. Emotion carried with
ti-le following roll call vote:
Ay!;5,: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Chairperson
Burton.
fIC*;r: Commissioners Zngrao and Remy
ABSTAIL1. ":one.
ABSI'NT: None.
Commission recessed at 9:31 P.M., reconvening at 9:45 P.M.
Subarea 4:
On a motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by
Commissioner Remy, recommending approval by City Council per
staff's recommendal.iorr to read as follows:
Retain the existing General Plan designation of Low Density
Residential (5 du/ac) and change the existing zoning from
'igh Density Residential (32 du /a(--) to Residential Single
Pamuly. Potion carried unanimously with the following roll
_.a11 Vol!(-:
Remy and
Density Resi dent ijal (32 du /ac) to Medium Density
lzoSi don tia1 (16 du %ac) and change the existing zoning from
esick.nti,il ILigh DensiCy (32 du /ac) to Rlsidential Multi
,'amily (16 du /ac). ?lotion carried with the following roll
call vote:
Ny1;; Connnis:u.oners Bruner, Tngrao, and Remy.
NciP,:3: Coimr,i.ssi.oner:; Schuel)e and Chai.rperson Burton.
APf;TAIN: None.
ABSi;NT: None.
subareas 2, 3 and 9-
Subarea 2:
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Corm staffer
Bruner, recommending approval by City Council per
reconurenclat.ion and amendment thereto.
C!iange the existing General I'lan designation from General
Comore; -cial I:o Low Density Residential (5 du /ac). Also,
change the existing zoning from Residential high Density (32
du /ac) to Residential Single Family on the west side of
Sagnolia from 10th to Ilth Streets. The remainder of
Subarea 2 (west side of Magnolia from 8th through 10th
ets) c`lange General Plan designation from Commercial
General to D1edium Density ??esi.dential and change the zoning
from nigh Density residential to Multi- Family Residential.
AYO, : Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Pur.ton.
PIOTiS: tone.
ABSTAIN: "lone.
ABSENT: None.
Subarea 3:
on motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner.
Bruner, recommending approval by City Council of the
following:
Charge the existing General Plan designation from high
Density Residential (32 du /ac) to Medium Density Residential
(16 du /ac) and change the existing zoning from Residential
Iligh Density (32 du /ac) to P9ulti- Family Residential on those
portions located on the east side of Magnolia from 8th to
10th Streets and on the west side of orange from 8th to 9th
St' -eets. For the remainder of Subarea 3, change the General
Plan designation from High Density Residential to Low
Density P,es.idential and change the existing zoning from High
Density Residential to Single Family Residential.
AyT,S: Commissioners Bruner,
Chairperson rurton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAI " ?: None.
ABSGNT: *Bone.
Subarea 9:
Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
seconded by Commissioner
1.
ABSENT: None.
Attorney
informed the commission that you have to have a
Felt, that it
vote on the
Jegative Declaration as a whole.
tentative;
haci been
established at the beginning as a
to that
however,
it could be done now if there is a motion
of the
effect to approve as a final recommendation all
tentative,
recommendations.
on motion
by Commissioner_ Ingrao, seconded by Commissioner
Schuelke,
recommending approval of all of the tentative
a final recommendation and approval of
recommendations
as
88 -ND -1. Motion carried unanimously
Negative
neclaration
with the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES:
None.
ABSTAII;:
None.
A13SBNT:
None.
Therc tieing
no further business before the coamission, the
moctinq adjourned at 10:29 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Secretary
l
BEAUMONT PLANNI14G COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 26, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Special Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, January 26, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding.
Meeting was called to Order at 7:05 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Schuelke arrived shortly after roll call.
Attorney Ryskamp was also present at this meeting.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 6
Burton: Our only agenda item tonight is the Urgency Ordinance -
Interim Ordinance No.'651, City Initiated General Plan
Amendment 88 -GP -1, Rezone 88 -RZ -1 and Initial Study 88-
ND-1, (for our audience, I always use to set out there
and wonder what GP and ND - all that means, GP is
General Plan Amendment, R7, is rezone and ND is Negative
Declaration), for those portions of the City within the
following boundaries: From the Western City limits to
Cherry Avenue and from 6th St., to 11th Street -
including the north side of 11th - I believe isn't it?
Koules: Portions of north - yes.
Burton: And do you have anymore information you want to give us
Steve?
Koules: No, madam chairman - I think the presentation we made
at the last meeting stands - the recommendations
haven't changed.
Burton: George suggested that we take this area by area. And I
think that's a good suggestion. We'll do one area and
make a recomriendation regarding that area - not a final
recommendation but a tentative recommendation until our
next meeting where we can work on that recommendation.
If you're not pleased with it or whatever - so do you
want to start with - -
Ingrao: is this (inaudible) from the public hearing.
Burton: I could if I wanted - -
Ingrao: Probably should before we start - -
LA�e" r- So my recommendation would be that you take your open
communication at this time and once that period has
expired and those who requested to speak has spoken,
(inaudible) public hearing when you get to the items.
Burton: O.k.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak, o.k. Well let's
start with proponents, Nancy Tadius - would you come
forward and give us your name and address please.
Good evening. My name is Nancy Titus and I live at
660 Pennsylvania, in Beaumont. And I represent a group
for single family zoning in Beaumont here. And the
reason why I don't like this R -3 because I moved from
Los Angeles about 2 or 3 years ago, because I lived in
a neighborhood where there was apartments, and my car
has been stolen in that apartment area. There is lots
of things that have happened to me and I know for a
fact that living in a residential,area is so much
better and I - it's so much better and I mean these
high rise - these two story or high rise whatever, they
just block your view - I won't be able to the beautiful
San Gorgonio mountain any more from my kitchen window
and congestion and that sort of thing and I'm strictly
for 651. Thank you.
Burton: Valerie Monroe.
Iii, Valerie Monroe, 666 California and I'm definitely a
proponent of the ownzoning or finance because - I'm
going to try and put this - how can I say it with only 3
minutes o.k., I. don't know that their downzoning of the
whole area is the answer, but I do know that its better
than having two story buildings being put up next to
houses. I don't live across, or next to a vacant lot,
but - we were gonna buy a house next to a vacant lot
over on )<enia and - we ask the Realtor what do you
think about this lot next door, you know,, what do you
think is going happen, who owns it, what are they going
to do with it. Well it just so happened that that big
apartment complex with up next to it and I'm glad we
did not buy the place. I don't have to necessarily
live next to an apartment or a complex or I don't
necessarily have to live across from an empty lot to
know that I don't like what I see. I take my dog for a
walk, and I can see apartment complexes going up here
there and everywhere and it looks like hell - I stated
that last time at the Planning Commission, it does - it
looks out of place, I'm sure those people that own
their homes next door to that thing don't like it and I
don't like looking at it. If you go to an area where
it's all apartment complexes o.k., it's apartment
complexes, it's not sitting next to a couple of houses
or in a residential area - so I don't.think its good
for the continuity of the City, I just don't like
looking at it, I wouldn't want living next to it and I
think the main reason we are having problems is because
it's obviously money involved. People have a lot to
Burton: We need you to come here and give us your name
(inaudible) just tell us the areas because we need you
on the mike - it won't pick up over there.
I see, you want this all recorded o.k., you want me to
identify myself - I'm Ron Hoff, I'm a resident of
Beaumont -
Burton: Could you give us your address?
Yes, 798 Michigan Avenue and I'm in property
management. I'm concerned apartment houses and their
location and so on. I appreciate the gal just before
me - the statement she made and I concur with her that
apartments should be located in a proximity or
contiguous to each other and as such because this is an
apartment zone. Over here you have Subareas 5, 6 and
7. That originally was drawn out o.k., but I guess
your director took the liberty of yellowing out a
section where there is suppose to be a single family
residence or subarea - -
voules: ^7o, the recommendation and staff report, recommends the
westerly portion of Subarea 5 to go to single family
density and the easterly portion to remain high
density.
Floff: So really that is defeating what you're really
attempting to do. You're trying to get this properly
zoned, get your residential to stay in their place so
you don't have encroachments. There you have an area
that is primarily and practically all of it is high
density or. apartment buildings. Now we're taking out a
portion and making it single - you're going to reduce
the value for future expansion of property - nobody
probably wants to buv there as a single family
residence with apartments all around you - and so
as such, my suggestion is that that stay in the present
zoning that you have already, it's high density zoning
right no%.. - so why change, cause it's in the general
area where you are trying to develop apartment houses
(inaudible).
Burton: Thank you.
Bill Williams.
I'm William L. Williams, 1235 Wellwood, I'm speaking
for the Beaumont Chamber of Commerce. We are mainly
concerned with that area on 6th - where we have
Omni tool and dye - Summit Tool and Dye, these
are very beautiful little machine shops. As I
understand it, you're going to change that to
commercial which would make these little employers a
non - conforming use and we don't think we should do
that. Because we have so few job opportunities in this
City that I think we should keep it light industry -
the way it is now as I understand it. There's
Burton: That's zoned ML?
Williams: What is that zone now? On the north side of 6th Street
right east of HCI Furniture.
Koules: The zoning is commercial general, the plan designation
is light industrial. I'm talking about Subarea 12.
Burton: It's the general plan that's - - (inaudible).
Koules: Talking about from California to Edgar -
Williams: Yes, between California and Edgar that's where Omni
engineering is.
Ingrao: That's where HCI is.
Koules: O.k., the general plan designation is general
commercial and the existing zoning is light commercial
manufacturing, whichever way we go we want to match up
the zoning plan.
Burton: Thank you. Leo Gray.
My name is Leo Gray, 290 W. 10th, I'm a homeowner - I
talk from what i think and what I feel. I've heard
people say about two stories and I can understand that
in single or in one story areas - and I can go along
with that. To make any of these areas which you can
see is spotted well with units - to make any of them
single family only, it outdates all those units. It
puts a lot people in a bad position. So I would
suggest and I feel that if you went to maybe lesser
units than high density and keep it to single story, I
don't think it will hurt the single housing any - and
probably will help it because if you take an old house
on the back of a lot and you build a couple of nice
apartments in front of it - it upgrades the area.
Thank you.
Burton: Than], you.
Mr. Parrot.
My name is Frank Parrot, 655 Edgar - I'm a property
owner there. My daughter as that old house - one of
the oldest houses in Beaumont across the street on
Edgar - that big three story house there at 666 and my
son -in -law grandfather - great grand- father was the
first Mayor of Beaumont - Mr. McCoy - I just wanted you
to know -
Burton:
That
you're
a long time resident.
Parrot:
I've
only
been here two years.
Burton:
Oh,
I see
- well you're not a long time resident then.
Parrot:
No,
I'm
not a long time resident - my son -in -law has
because here is the reason. You see Edgar Avenue
there. It's right beyond 6th. On the one corner there
is an apartment house there, there is an apartment
house across the street from it and behind that house
is a warehouse HCI - fix furniture and they have a
warehouse right behind my property - then there's
churches in the whole area, I understand it was an
original town site there - in that area. I would like
to see this higher density than an R -1.
Burton: It is currently.
Parrot: It is currently - it is a higher density - yes. May be
later on I want to put some apartments in there myself,
but I know I'd have to buy 2 or 3 lots, but that's the
way I'd like to see it go. I worked on some of these
planning maps and so forth years ago, but I think that
would be a better way to do it.
Parrot: Thank you.
Sec: Excuse me Patti, if I have to type this verbatim, I
need for them to speak directly into.the mike.
Burton: O.k., did you hear our secretary - she has to type all
of these comments, everything verbatim word for word so
she needs everyone' to speak directly into the
microphone if you would please.
tiatalie %Ielnyk. I know I must have slaughtered that -
Melnyk - Madam chairman, board members and fellow
residents and property owners, my name is
Natalie Melnyk, and I'm representing my parents who are
property owners at 849 Orange Avenue between 8th and
9th. We have a vested interest in the community
because the property that my parents purchased two
years ago was planned to be their retirement property.
They were going to move out here into Beaumont because
it was a cui.et but slowly redeveloping community. I
noticed that in Beaumont, there is this particular
area, most of the homes were older homes and some had
gone to disrepair. Since the lots are nice size and
zoned for R -3 they seemed ideal for me to design (by
profession I'm an architect), my parents would do the
building and construction on the property for a nice
little fourplex apartment unit that they could both
retire, live in, manage and be a part of the Beaumont
community. The place would bring a small income for
them to just pay for it's self, but because of the
social security and pension plans, we all know that it
is rarely anybody can survive on those alone. In
otherwords, we were prepared to invest in the future of
Beaumont. With this re- zoning in some of the areas, I
know it hasn't been totally stated as to which exact
areas would be reverting back to R -1 or which would
remain R -3. It seems that - I'm sure that there are
concerns of the Planning Commission over population,
the crowding, the various problems. As a slowly
a single lot your units are limited as to size, plus
an addition with setbacks and with the requirement
that you cannot back up into a street, but have to
pull a "Y" turn and enter the street frontwards. It
seems like with all these controls on building
requirements, it would be difficult to build very high
density units - sure you could probably go very multi
story but then that could be limited to one or two. I
think with continuing some of the areas as R -3, it
would really help the communities growth, the
businesses & property values would continue growing and
investors would come in and purchase older homes,
reconstruct, refurbish whatever it may be and up
grade the appearance of the community. Otherwise, to
build a single family unit amongst apartment units,
rarely do you get your full value back in resale.
Especially, if other adjacent homes are in disrepair
or in a deteriorating state. So with this in mind I
hope that some of the areas especially between the
parkway and Beaumont Avenue & some along the main
streets could be continued to be R -3 and developed
further - the other areas could then possibly stay R -1
or be reverted to R -1. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Schuelke: (inaudible) ask a question.
Burton: Yes, Ms. Melnyk.
Schuelke: I would like to ask you a question. Your parents lot
- was it 849 Orange?
Melnyk: 849 Orange Avenue.
Schuelke: Is the park right across the street?
Melnyk:
Yes it is.
Schuelke:
Did you calculate it with the most recent requirements
from our zoning ordinance - as to how many units
you
would end up on that particular lot?
Melnyk:
I came up with 4 units - in fact I have a set of
plans
if you would like to see them.
Schuelke:
Is that with the most recent changes open
space
requirements and -
Melnyk:
The setbacks - it's 60 x 180 -
Burton:
We can't look at that -
Schuelke:
I don't want to look at it, I just wanted to know how
many units you calculated on that lot using the
most
zone changes that were made with open
space
requirement plus the one's you mentioned
- the
setbacks and the turnaround out to the street.
Melnyk: When was this change, because there -
Ryskamp: It changed about June 87.
Burton: July, something like that.
Ryskamp: I think 6/87 is the revision date for the page.
Melnyk: No, I did not receive those - I must have gotten them
back in April.
Ryskamp: June of 87 there was a change - the entire RHD and RMF
zones were re- worked in terms of the - by the Planning
commission and City Council. (inaudible) fact that I
hadn't heard (inaudible) talked about here - so I think
maybe that should be (inaudible).
Koules: I don't believe that the proposed zoning would allow 3
units - we're talking about 16 dwelling units per acre.
Burton: Well wait a minute -
Schuelke: That isn't going to change that lot requirement.
(inaudible) all speaking at once.
Koules: It will because in the,zoning ordinance the residential
medium family allows 60', but when you get to the
residential high density that the 70 foot requirements
are proposed.
Schuelke: But in that particular area the recommendation for RMF.
Koules: Yes.
Schuelke: So under the RMF zoning they would be allowed a 60' lot
in order to (inaudible).
Koules: Yes - which is what they've got.
Burton: Because the majority of the lots in this whole town is
60 feet.
Koules: I know, I know I'm just referring to your ordinances.
(TROUBLE WITH PA SYSTEM)
Burton: I don't have them (inaudible) in otherwords, what
you're saying to us now, is with the 70 feet
requirement on all these lots - they can't build
apartments on there anyway.
Koules: That is correct.
Burton: And I think that is why we did that.
Koules: (inaudible) the two project that started this business
that are in for a building permit - 60 foot lots - the
Schiro lots are 60 foot - and should not have been
accepted and processed because they are in violation of
tna 7nnina ordinance, unless you apply and are granted
Ryskamp:
The
Schiro
property
should not have been presented.
Burton:
It's
on a
60' lot.
But the RMF zoning would allow -
Koules Yes. The requirement for lot size in the RMF zoning
arc 60 feet width.
Melnyk: (inaudible - speaking from audience).
Melnvk: Does it have to have alley use and access?
(inaudible).
Burton: Rio, no, we don't require any - in fact I think we
really prefer not to use the alley but many of them do.
This particular property we are talking about right now
- 849 Orange that Emeline was talking about - that is
not in Subarea 8 is it?
Schuelke: It's in Subarea 3. (inaudible).
Koules: Subarea 8. Subarea 8 which would run from the east
side of Magnolia Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue from -
adjacent to the commercial property fronting on the
north side of 6th to a; -one lot depth dimension from the
north side of 8th Street.
Burton: So they would be in 3 - they're above it.
Schuelke: I'm finding it in Subarea 3.
Koules: They're above it -
Burton: 849 would be above 8th.
Koules: I'm sorry (inaudible).
Burton: Betty Rouse.
My name is Betty Rouse, and I live at 7004 Magnolia in
Riverside and we had been coming to Beaumont and
planning to move down here for the past three years -
so we purchased property and in the last two two and
half years we've remodeled and practically torned down
three old houses that we bought and moved out maybe
some of the worse drug problems that were in town and
made them into three of the nicest houses on the
streets and we're proud of them. We've put in very
good renters, two families from out of the area and
they're permanently going to living in Beaumont and
we're going to be moving down here sometime this summer
- and we have property we're going to build on - but we
like Beaumont and have looked for an area like Beaumont
for many years - and purchased that we have for the
simple .reason we'd like to have put two small units or
a duplex on the back of each of the areas because they
are R -3 when we bought them for that purpose and then
maybe take down the older houses that are in the front.
.. . ___ _, _ -..,.a ,.., ham,,, rt renters that would enhance the
would like to become part of what's going on - and we
hate to see these changes going on because in one way
it knocks us right out of what we had planned for our
retirement and I think there a lot of areas in town
where they have R -3 with the old houses on them and
there isn't any way of changing that unless the houses
are torn down and start all over again - but if you
could put nice units and.if each of these cases were
taken on a (inaudible) merit and what the people plan
to build on them, the idea of the high density with the
apartments and all the - actually what's happened in
Banning could be kept under control. But to be able to
build a nice a duplex on the back of your property and
have nice renters is really in my mind, would keep the
property very nice and enhance the area. Thank you
very much.
Koules: I'd like to ask where the property is.
Remy: I'd like to ask a question.
Burton: Mrs. Rouse, what property are you talking about?
Rouse: (inaudible). Two on California, one on Wellwood.
Koules: What block?
Rouse: 915 and yes - 928 Wellwood and then were we're to build
is at the end of Edgar.
Burton: it's 915 California?
Rouse: 915 California, 929 California and 928 Wellwood, they
kinda back up to each other. Thank you.
Burton: Mr. Kosner. I didn't see that you were with the Summit
Tool and Dye (inaudible).
My partner is also here, the other owner of Summit Tool
and Dye.
Burton: State your name and address.
Kosner: Dan Kosner and the business is at 440 W. 6th Street -
and I guess mainly I need to know some of the -
according to the paper everything from 6th Street to
11th Street was going to be changed or down graded to -
like an R -1 and I think by listening to some of the
other speakers this isn't true.
Burton: No. what basically the study is doing, is looking at
the high density zoning within the area and changing
that zoning - not necessarily to all R -1 to - whatever
or maybe it won't even change you know.
Kosner: Our main concern is what is going to- happen to 6th
- north of 6th Street. We have been there for 10 years
and we have been a conforming business and for you to
change that to an R -1 or even C -1 a commercial
(inaudible) would make us non - conforming and you can
would match.
Kosner: well - we sure would like to see you do that, because
10 years ago when we started our business there if you
remember right, that end of town was nothing but vacant
lots, weed patches and so on and we have put a lot of
money in there and so have a lot of other people - and
it's really I think become an attractive area for
business - our type of business.
Burton: Thank you.
Kosner: Thank you.
Burton: Mr. Zerr.
My name is Rudolph Zerr _ and I live at 633 E. 13th
Street in Beaumont anC I'm the other half of Summit
Tool and Dye - my partner Dan Kosner was just up here.
And the reason we're here because we are a little
concerned of what's going. Like Dan said, we started
down there 10 years ago and cleaned up nothing but weed
patches and old buildings and we added to it and in my
opinion zoning this for commercial wouldn't be a good
idea because the type of buildings that are there are
more are more useful for storage or warehousing or what
we put in so far - !that's our concern - that's why
we're here tonight so that we're not being put out of
business or being not conforming with the City code.
Burton: Thank you Mr. Zerr. O.k., is.there anyone else wishing
to speak that hasn't spoke?
Ingrao: Mike is not on.
Burton: The mike is not working Cherry.
Sec: Yes they are - they better be.
Burton: Now they are. They're working now but they weren't
Koules: Madam chairman, I want to bring up a point. There is a
reference made to the old R -3 zoning and that would
imply a high density residential type. Now of course,
I'm new to the community so I could stand corrected on
some of this - but in researching the files, I see that
going back to September 84 - yes - September 84, that
all the properties within the City of Beaumont that
were zoned R -3 and was shown as a high density
residential which at that time meant 1 to 16 units to
the acre, that that designation was changed to the
present high density residential 32. So I think there
should be some clarification of that point because to a
listener you say well this is zoned R -3 and it was
always 32 du to the acre, well apparently it was not.
Burton: Right - I agree with you, that is a very important
point - that many of the property owners don't realize
that up to (when did we change that to 32) -
Burton: To conform to the zoning and the general plan has to
conform by State law and one was already made that when
the general plan was adopted in 1982?
Koules: I believe that was the adoption date of the general
plan - yes.
Burton: Yeah, so we made the zoning ordinance conform to the
general plan map. Does that answer your question as to
why it was changed. It really was - it really was
one was one still saying 16 and one was saying 32 - so
we had to change one and we conformed it to the 32
units per acre. But the general - the layout of where
the high density was going - that cost us $60,000. for
that layout for the whole City of the general plan -
right?
Ryskamp: Yeah, as I recall I thought it was $30,000 but I was
not here at the time it was paid - I only was involved
in (inaudible).
Burton: I believe it was $60,000. to give us this and that's -
it was in 1982 that this was laid out and the zoning
was put on it - and I was not here on this commission
at that time. I think Mrs. Schuelke was weren't you?
Schuelke: Not when the general plan was adopted. But at the time
they needed to have'this zoning ordinance conform to
the general plan, that's about the time that I came in.
I was green then, I didn't really know why,' but other
than you know the general plan is a long range plan for
how you want your City to be and then your zoning is
suppose to conform to that plan because if you sit down
and you make a plan on how you want to draw your home
and then you don't use that plan in order - you know -
to build it - probably the architect here will tell
you, so the general plan is a.long range goal and plan
of the City and then your zoning needs to conform to
that. It takes precedence over your zoning - is that
right Mr. Ryskamp?
Ryskamp: Yes.
Schuelke: And so when I came on the commission, the zoning
ordinances none of them conformed to the general plan
cause they had not yet been written. Therefore, in
order to be within the State law we conformed the
zoning to the general plan thinking we would get to the
zoning later and straighten it out - well it's been
tough to do that.
Burton: O.k. having no one else wishing to speak, we will move
on to our agenda Item No. 1, which is the special study
area - the Urgency Interim ordinance. Emeline wasn't
here when I suggested - George suggested that we take
each subarea and give a tentative recommendation
tonight so it could be put down on paper that we could
look at next meeting - wouldn't be final, but we would
go through it and say "well let's do this with this
area and Cherry would tvne on Subarea 1, we want to do
Burton: Well, I don't think we'll adopt anything tonight.
Ryskamp: My main concern is I think rather than talking about
Subarea 1 and then going on talking about '10 and then
12 and working your way through and then trying to come
back and do a total motion with a single
recommendation, I just don't see it working
practically. So I think the better way would be to
take each subarea, make a motion for a tentative
recommendation and that way you can assemble those and
with a single motion -
Burton: That's what I said.
Ryskamp: Adopt all of them. The only thing I was suggesting was
that hope springs eternal
Burton: Not in Beaumont.
Ryskamp: You might move a little faster than you were suggesting
- that was all -
Burton: You can have this - well where do you want to start.
Let's go to Subarea 1. Now everybody knows what it is
zoned as right now.
i'
Schuelke: Are we allowed to then take Subarea 1 since it is one
of the bigger ones and maybe break it down into smaller
areas to be able to discuss it a little easier?
Burton: Yeah, because -
Burton: And then one block to.the next are just totally
different environment.
Remy: I could almost make a motion tonight on the whole
thing.
Burton: Oh you could! You can make your motion if you would
like.
Remy: O.k. I studied the (inaudible) vacant lot and found
that most of them in the high density zoning were 60
feet or less anyway - there is only one or two that are
more than 60 feet. So in that case anyone with 60 foot
lots in the high density zone (inaudible) high
density now would not be able,to build apartments on it
anyway. So I went through Steve's proposal and I liked
it all except for one part and that's the machine -
where the machine shops are at the bottom - (pointing)
that is right there. I would recommend keeping those
and following the suggestions in the rest of it.
Burton: Is that your motion?
Remy: Yes - I will make that a motion. You want me to detail
it.?
Burton: Yes, please.
designation from general commercial to low density
residential and change the existing zoning from
residential high density to residential single family.
Burton: is that all of his recommendations - right?
Remy: Yes.
Burton: I don't think you have to read that - if you just tell
us the areas that you want to follow his
recommendations.
Remy: Yeah, that's Area 1 o.k.
Burton: All but 11 and 12 right?
Remy: Yes all but 11 and 12.
Koules: May I clarify (inaudible). It would be agreeable on
Subarea 11 to change the department's recommendation
and would leave instead of the original recommendation
it would retain the existing general plan designation
general commercial, it would read change the existing
general plan designation of general commercial to light
industry and retain -
Burton: Excuse me, are you talking about ML - we don't have a
light industrial zoning -
Koules: No - the general plan -
Burton: Calls for light industrial?
Koules: The general plan calls for general commercial but the
zoning is light industry.
Burton: Right.
Koules: So what I'm trying to do is -
Ryskamp: Commerical manufacturing.
Koules: Right, o.k. what I'm trying to do is bring the two
succinct. whereas before staff was recommending to keep
the general plan designation general commercial and
change the zone to match, now we'll change our
department's recommendation to change the general plan
to light industry and leave the zoning light commercial
manufacturing - so that they match.
Burton: Light commercial manufacturing.
Koules: Yes. So Subarea 11 matches and then similarly but in
way (inaudible) different, on Subarea 12 we change our
recommendation to say retain the existing general plan
designation of light industry and change the existing
zoning of commercial general to light commercial
manufacturing - I believe that is what Mrs. Remy wants
- and the gentleman spoke of. I believe that would
address Mrs. Remy's (inaudible).
4
Koules: Light Commercial Manufacturing.
Burton: Light Commercial Manufacturing.
Koules: That's correct. Staff would concur - staff concurs
with that - we would change our recommendation.
Burton: Do we have a second?
Remy: Oh, I forgot one thing - I'm sorry, also to approve
Negative Declaration 88 -ND -1.
Burton: And to approve Negative Dec. 88 -ND -1, do we have a
second?
Ingrao: I'll second it.
Burton: We have a second. Now then Ethel, I have requested to
ask you and your second, could we pull 11 and 12 and
vote on them separately?
Remy: If you wish.
Ingrao: Why.
Burton: We had a commissioner.request that.
Ryskamp: I would suggest that/you deal with the motion as made
and then depending on the outcome, make a new motion
relative to 11 and 12 if that is necessary.
Burton: Alright. Do we have any discussion on this motion for
re -vote? If not, we'll call for your question.
AYES: Commissioners Ingrao and Remy.
NOES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Chairperson
Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Burton: would you like to make a motion on Subareas 11 and 12.?
Schuelke: If Ethel doesn't want to.
Burton: Do you want to make it on 11 and 12?
Ingrao: 1 through 10 or 11 and 12?
Burton: Emeline asked that 11 and 12 be voted on separately.
Remy: O.k. however it was - 11 and 12 can be voted on
separately, how about the rest of it?
Burton: I don't know about that, but she feels that -
Schuelke: I'll make a motion if she won't. '
Sec: Excuse me Patti,, this motion that was just made was not
made for all of the 12 - it was just made for the 10.
Schuelke: I'd like to make motion that we approve staff
recommendation as amended this evening; that Subarea
11, the general plan designation be changed to light
commercial manufacturing and the zone remain light
commerical manufacturing.
Ryskamp: The general plan designation is light industry.
Schuelke: well - designation here - the original staff
recommendation says to retain the existing general plan
designation of general commercial.
Koules: We amended that to change -
Ryskamp: The general plan is light industry in the zoning
ordinance it is commercial manufacturing. The names
are not the same - they mean the same concept.
Schuelke: But we're changing the general, plan - I wrote it as he
said it up there.
Burton: Change the existing general plan designation to light
industry.
(COMMISSIONERS TALKING :''ONCE)
Ryskamp: I thought you had said to commercial manufacturing -
maybe I heard wrong.
Schuelke: And that's for Subarea 11 and for Subarea 12 -
Remy: You were changing - what are you changing the zoning
from then?
Burton: The zoning stays the same.
Schuelke: The zoning stays the same, we're just having it conform
to the general plan by changing the general plan to
light industry.
Ingrao: And retain the existing zoning - change the general
plan.
Remy: Well isn't that what I just did?
Koules: Yes.
Remy: o. k.
Ingrao: She is just making a motion on the two alone.
Remy: Yeah - alright.
Schuelke: And Subarea 12 that we approve Subarea 12 as recommended
by our staff with the change made this evening, that the
existing general plan designation be retained as light
industry and that the zoning be changed to light
commercial.
Koules: Manufacturing.
We have a motion on the floor to approve - does that
include the negative declaration -
Schuelke: Yes, I'm sorry. To include the approval of the negative
declaration.
Burton: To approve Subarea 11, changing the existing general
plan designation to light industry, retain the zoning
from light commercial manufacturing and Subarea 12,
retain the existing general plan designation of light
industry and change the existing zoning to light
commercial manufacturing.
Schuelke: May I ask a question -
Burton: wait a minute - and approval of 88 -ND -1.
Schuelke: That's my question - if that negative declaration is for
the whole area.
Ryskamp: My recommendation once again would be that each of these
be a tentative recommendation, that we then come back
and vote on a total recommendation and adopt a negative
declaration at that time.
Burton: O.k. i
Ryskamp: So that there will be ;a second vote (inaudible).
Burton: So we will strike the 88 -ND -1. O.k. Can we have roll
call please.
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy
and Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Burton: O.k. our City Attorney has suggested that we go to
Subarea 5, 6 and 7.
Remy: Why don't we start at 1 - if we going to vote on each
area separately?
Ryskamp: I frankly was suggesting you take care of some of the
peripheral areas that I think will be resolved so that
if there are those who are sitting in the audience
waiting for some of those areas to be taken care of
they can then depart. It's just a call, but I suspect
5, 6 and 7 are more likely be approved. That was a
suggestion. (inaudible).
Remy: I make a motion that we approve -
Burton: Wait a minute Ethel before you start that, may I ask - 5
is up there and you're recommending the front half of
that RSF?
Koules: The westerly half because of the vacant lots and the
single familv is on there and because it faces single
Burton: I don't like making half
Remy: Well they're different streets - there is Pennsylvania
and then there is Cherry so they are totally different
streets.
Ingrao: Plus I think you are projecting -
Remy: And the entrances from Cherry on - you know.
Ingrao: Plus I think you have to protect
Remy: You've got to protect Pennsylvania side.
Schuelke: I'm sorry - I'm out of order.
Burton: Say what you wanted to say. You wanted to say something
to me.
She was berating me - now she won't berate me. O.k.
You wanted to make a motion Ethel?
Remy: Yes, 5, 6, and 7 I would like to move that in Subarea 5,
we approve the Community Director's recommendation - to
the easterly half of Subarea 5 parcels 008 and 009
retain the existing general plan designation of - oh
wait - that isn't right - I've got on the wrong thing
here - just a minute.
The westerly half of Subarea 5 parcels 001 through 006
change the existing general plan designation of high
density residential to low density residential 5 du /ac.
and change the existing zoning from residential high
density 32 du /ac. to single family residential and then
the easterly half of Subarea 5 parcels 008 and 009
retain the existing general plan designation of high
density residential and retain the existing residential
high density zoning. That - for Subarea 5, and then
Subarea 6, change the existing general plan designation
from medium density residential to high density
residential and change existing zoning from residential
single family to residential high density and Subarea 7,
retain the existing general plan designation of high
density residential and retain the existing zoning of
residential high density. (inaudible).
Burton: And we have a second. I'm not going to re -read all of
that. Everybody heard the motion and the second. Can
we have roll call please?
Wait a minute. Mrs. Schuelke is reading.
Schuelke: Thank you.
Burton: Roll call please.
Sec: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuel-ke, Ingrao, Remy
and Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
has it been studied as to whether that would affect
amendment to the housing element or the general -
Ryskamp: we've reviewed those facts. at length and it is
significant for example the area right now that you've
just designated as residential high density once again
does not reduce the residential high density in terms of
the low and moderate income housing which was the issue
in the housing element as it stands right now. And
also, it actually increases part of it. And also, with
the area that is designated as RMF that area would also
qualify - and when we reach that small of an area that
would actually be re- designated, it is relatively minor.
In my opinion depending on how you look at 'it, and I
think we talked one night about the Supreme. Coal case
where it happened to be 50% of that individual's coal
but it was only 28 of the total and they sold them on
the idea it was 28 of the total and the court said then
that's not a problem, it's not a taking, there is no
other issues or problem. You look at the statistics -
but when we look at the total residential high density
available in the City, I think we've -
Koules: 324 acres.
Ryskamp: 324 acres
Koules: In addition to this. '
Ryskamp: In addition to the study area, Steve pointed out that if
that were fully developed as RHD which is permissible
and possible there would be 11,000 new dwelling units
expected because of the apartment nature and the high
density nature to be all low, moderate income houses.
So realistically, we have areas already designated, not
to mention the fact that Beaumont even when the general
plan was adopted did have it's recognized share of the
regional low and moderate income housing and there has
been since the adoption of the general plan a number of
residential high density development in the City that
have provided additional housing. In fact, I think that
those of you who have been here think about how many
units have gone up since 82 that's been apartment
houses. I think we have pretty well dealt with that
issue in the fact that we do have available to us enough
of that housing to qualify under the housing element.
And the other elements of the general plan we're
changing as we go.
Koules: In addition, we have the residential overlay bonus
category in the zoning ordinance so we can even add -
you know density bonuses when needed, so I think the
tools are there and I'm not concerned that this would
have any conflict with the housing element.
Burton: o.k. I would recommend that you turn the mikes back on
first. But I recommend we hold No. l last - but people
are waiting here so let's get to it. Subarea 1.
Subarea 1 is not the entire - that easterly section over
Koules: Right up to Elm O.k-
Burton: O.k. that little chunk of land that is -
Koules: This chunk here.
Burton: That is - no, -
Koules:
Here's
10th
and
here's Elm.
Burton:
Let me
come
down
there.
Koules: 0.k.
Burton: But I want to make sure that we don't have any of these
split lots.
Koules: Well if the recommendation was takened, then it would
not split.
Burton: I agree - right, but there's other lot splits right now
down here -
Koules:
You see this little chunk of land
right here.
Koules:
That's this chunk here.
the
Burton:
No, that is this chunk right here and it splits this
Burton:
lot.
Koules:
Well this is 10th - see this is 10th Place here.
Burton:
Right.
Koules:
So this sliver, this sliver - -
he says more or less.
Burton:
Is part of this -
But
Koules:
And something else you're saying
-
Burton:
No, what I'm saying is, this is
RSF right now and this
down here is high density.
Koules:
Yes, but it's (inaudible)
Burton:
This is my concern right here -
this chunk of land. I
to
don't want to see a lot split.
I know you're saying
change all this to RSF.
Koules: 0.k.
Burton: But I want to make sure that we don't have any of these
split lots.
Koules: Well if the recommendation was takened, then it would
not split.
Burton: I agree - right, but there's other lot splits right now
down here -
Koules:
Well
we tried to delineate the separation
(inaudible)
the
best we can by following - - (inaudible).
Burton:
O.k.
Koules:
That
is why you have this jagged line -
Remy:
And
he says more or less.
Burton:
But
it makes it difficult when they go to
develop a
piece of property if half of it is RSF and
the other
know - that's my suggestion if everyone is agreeable
with me, but we could take Subarea 1 by each of those 5
pages of the assessors's maps because you see some of
subarea 5 is already zoned RSF so we don't even need to
look at that page, but the 1st page of the assessor's
map that I came across as being in Subarea 1 is book 414
page 19 if everyone has the assessor's map. Up on the
upper left hand corner of that page is the book number,
and the page number - 414 -19.
Burton: But they are not all in order - if you got them the way
they were given to you.
Schuelke: I'm sorry, I put mine in order by the book and page
number.
Burton: I did to.
Schuelke: Did. you.
Burton: Yeah, then I glued them together.
Remy: Steve had some things that were all glued together. Are
we going to get one of those?
Koules: Yes, I can give you one:
Remy: It would be easier than (inaudible) back and forth on
this.
Koules: If I may I can distribute to the commission some blank
maps and -
Burton: O.k. that.would be good.
Remy: Fine, because these other things are blank any how.
(INAUDIBLE — MAPS BEING UNFOLDED).
Remy: You want me to pass this down - go ahead pass it down to
the end there.
(INAUDIBLE)
Schuelke: So going all the way -
Koules: We don't have enough pens to go around - (inaudible).
Remy: Anybody want some crayons?
Burton: Put them down here and I'll hold them and if anybody
wants them they can scribble with them - I suppose.
O.k.
Schuelke: Going all the west to Elm Avenue in Subarea 1 -
Burton: All the way around to Elm.
Schuelke: Yeah, the 1st assessor's map is page 19 and it's from
8th Street to the northerly -
Koules: North side of 10th Place -
Schuelke: Here's 10th Place, this is. 191 here - right here.
Burton: Oh yeah - (inaudible).
Schuelke: 192 and then 193.
Burton: So it's this part, this part and this part. O.k.
Schuelke: Now these maps show where Valerie first - yes, where she
showed that o.k.
Burton: This is apartments.
Schuelke: Right, and this is that new subdivision.
Burton: This is the new subdivision. O.k., now what is your
ideas. This is all currently zoned RHD.
Schuelke: Right, for that partic,
recommendation would be
the assurance again from
they will write into our
legal non - conforming,
conforming as far as -
31ar page it seems that staff's
the most appropriate. Having
our attorney and our staff that
zoning ordinance the fact these
will not remain legal non-
Ryskamp: You mean will remain -
Schuelke: They will remain except that there will be provisions
for them in a case of catastrophic - they can build and
that sort of thing.
Ryskamp: That ordinance has been prepared and will be presented
to you at the next meeting in the form of a report. We
don't have time to get it on the agenda as an ordinance
because there isn't time to (inaudible) the public
hearing. But it will come to you in the form of an
report so you have it before you make a decision.
Schuelke: So, I don't know if we can separate motions within each
page, if I'm permitted to i would like to make a motion
regarding that one page. Otherwise, we can make up - we
can discuss -
Burton: She is breaking down the Subarea 1.
Schuelke: By assessor's parcel map pages.
Koules: Can we call that Subarea 1 small "a" and then go to -
"b" -
Burton: "a" o.k. That would take it down to 8th, right and part
of that though goes into Subarea 10.
Schuelke: No, not on that page at all.
Burton: Yes it does.
and what was the recommendation -
Remy: well is there any reason we can't go on with the other
parts of this particular -
Schuelke: If you wish we can discuss all of Subarea A and then if
we want to break it down -
Burton: I don't see anything changing — (inaudible)
Schuelke: It is within the Subarea 1.
Ingrao: why don't we discuss what we have the problems with -
rather than what we don't have problems with.
Remy: Yeah.
Schuelke: If we get rid of the ones we don't have a problem with
we have more time to use our discussion on the ones we
do have problems on. But, you know whatever the
commission wants - if we -
Remy: It's time consuming finding all these pieces here and
giving them numbers - why don't we
Schuelke: There is only five pieces. It's just a lot easier -
what I'm trying to point out is that the environment
changes drastically from - even from this block here to
the next page on the assessor's -
Burton: She's right.
Schuelke: It's just a total environment -
Remy: well let's hear what the differences are instead of -
Schuelke: Then let's go to page 414 -20 -
Burton: Give us the block numbers?
Ryskamp: That is between 10th and -
Schuelke: Between 9th and 10th and between Elm and California.
Burton: Is that 201 and 202?
Schuelke: Yes, block 201 and 202.
Burton: You see those blocks?
Remy: There is four here.
Ingrao: No, these two.
Burton: Those two. Because the top part -
Remy: (inaudible).
Burton: See these - these are the number sheets.
Schuelke: Because there are 1, 2, 3, 4 apartment complexes within
that area - they each have 2 units on them.
Burton: Fine.
Schuelke: So that is real compatible to single family in my
opinion.
Remy: And the unit - vacant land - they are 60 feet or less
anyway. So they couldn't build apartments on them.
Schuelke: Unless they were RMF.
Ryskamp: or unless they buy 2 lots and merge them.
Remy: There aren't 2 lots there. (inaudible).
Schuelke: The one that I have the most problem with and the one
that I realize after I had the most problem with it, so
I don't know whether I can speak to it or not, is book
415, page 25 and it would be block 251, 252 and a
portion - the westerly portion of block 253.
Burton: (inaudible).
Remy: well that's not in the;area is it?
Ingrao: That's these 3 up here.
Schuelke: Subarea 1.
Remy:
Yeah.
Koules:
I lost
the (inaudible) when
we patched the plan
together,
I lost the book and page
number (inaudible).
Schuelke:
So, if you go by the blocks -
Burton:
It's the
chunk that is just above
10th. Right through
there.
Schuelke: Between - the streets -
Remy: It would help if you just gave us the street name.
Schuelke: The streets -
Burton: Not me.
Schuelke: I'm sorry - between 10th and 11th from California the
easterly side of California to the easterly side of
Euclid Avenue.
Koules: May I suggest that the easterly side of California,
unless I'm mistaken is left out -
Schuelke: You're right - you're right. It would be -
Koules: It would be from the alley behind California.
attention to anything north of that subarea until all of
a sudden it dawned on me and this is why I say I don't
whether I discuss this or not. I own the property at
1050, 1052 and 1054 Edgar Avenue - which is just north
of the subarea being considered.
Rvskamp: North. It's the RSF area that is not be considered.
Schuelke: Right.
Burton: Well it is within the study area, but it is not in the
subarea.
Y.oules: That's correct.
Ryskamp: Obviously the question that is running through my mind
is would there be any real impact depending on the
designation there on the value of your property and I
think the answer is really no - if you are outside of
the subarea you're talking about. If you owned a piece
of property any of you - own other property within
any of the subareas we're talking about - if you do when
we come to that subarea you should declare that fact and
pull yourself out. I don't see that that would have any
great impact other than.the general impact that's going
to happen with rezoning the area.
Remy: O.k., well did you have a problem there Emeline?
Schuelke: On that one, my suggestion and I hope that you believe
me, that I really was paying attention to addresses, as
I looked at it off of the map that Valerie did, I just
kinda counted the units. On the easterly side of Edgar
Avenue, just above 10th Street we have a fairly new
complex - there is 7 units and then there is a 6 unit
and then on the very corner on the northwest corner of
10th and Edgar there is a duplex.
Remv_: You mean the apartments that were in question sometime
ago when they built them? What about them?
Schuelke: So, my suggestion on that even though Subarea 1 calls
for downzoning down to RSF, is a recommendation for
just that one block and I would have to look because as
you go below 10th Street into the 900 block you have
almost the 'same situation with a lot of units along
Edgar Avenue and none along Euclid except maybe one or
two. So my recommendation in my opinion is that you
take Edgar Avenue and you zone it to RMF.
Remy: Well that would be spot zoning if we just have to take
out strips here and there.
Schuelke: I don't think it is spot zoning - I disagree with you.
Would that be spot zoning? If you take three blocks -
well maybe even 10 blocks down - that whole section to
RMF. I don't -
Ryskamp: You're talking about entire strip - for example - -
Ingrao: It is a mess.
Schuelke: That is the reason that RHD is not good for it, but RMF
again only allow the 3 or 4 units rather than the 7
that you've seen there or the 6 that has been there for
10 years.
Ingrao: But if we go to RMF we are still increasing off of RSF.
Just traffic potential in that area - there is a day
care nursery type school right there -
Schuelke: And they sold off their lot right next door as a high
density - we had a proposal here for an apartment
complex of 5 units that was rejected about 8 months
ago.
Remy: That wasn't theirs (inaudible) they were selling it for
a relative that died.
Schuelke: What's that?
Remy: That wasn't theirs, they were selling that for that
relative that died - or the friend that died.
Ingrao: That particular individual has come to me personally
after - the Fago apartments right next to her? Is that
what it is? Just north of the -
Remy: North of the nursery.
Ingrao: Yeah, and I can't say total shock, but I was in shock
as that structure began to take shape - my kids go
there. So I see the alley - the alley is inpassable.
If emergency vehicles had to go down that alley, there
is no way - there is no way they could get through that
section.
Burton: Now wait a minute - now wait a minute.
Ingrao: I know that is an enforcement problem.
Burton: That's enforcement - but we put the conditions - no
Dennis, we put the conditions on them that they had to
do this, this and this -
Ingrao: Patti -
Burton: And if they didn't go -
Ingrao: Can I finish?
Burton: Certainly -
Ingrao: What I'm to point out
but it is what's'affe
oroblems like this
number of people in an
area, maxing out a lot
it that you can, when
- it is an
sting the s
traffic
area, that
you know
enforcement problem,
Lngle family areas is
- parking, increased
can't accommodate the
get the most out of
Schuelke: horribly increased because of the 7 units, yet those
same people with the nursery school were here endorsing
the 5 unit complex right next door -
Remy: No they weren't. No they weren't. Those people are
personal friends of mine they -
Ingrao: Yeah, I don't think - I don't think
Schuelke: They have no objection - if you will go to our minutes,
I pulled the minutes on that project - that was for a
Mr. Lamberson and Glen Stall and the minutes state that
these people were not concerned - they came here to -
because they were having such a time getting those
units through and they brought people to speak for
them.
Remy: Not the same - you not talking about (inaudible).
Ingrao: You're talking about (inaudible). You're talking about
Potts,
Schuelke: Yeah, that's what I'm talking.
Remy: No - they weren't. They.-.-
Schuelke: Well you pull the minutes and you'll see where they
endorsed that project for the five units because that
property use to belong to them or a relative of theirs.
Remy: It was a friend of theirs.
Schuelke: And the only concern that they had was something to do
with the -
Burton: water line.
Schuelke: The way the water line or the sewer was going from the
alley across that lot onto theirs. That was the only
real concern.
Remy: Well they had other reservations.
Schuelke: But yes (COMMISSIONERS TALKING AT THE SAME TIME) .
Remy: But we're not discussing that though.
Schuelke: But yes, they were very opposed to the 7 unit as
everyone in town was. And that 7 unit was recommended
that that alley be paved and for some reason it has not
been paved yet it is occupied. And they are using that
alley as an entrance into their carports.
Ingrao: And they are parking in the alley.
Schuelke: And they are parking in the alley - causing people not
to be able to get in and out -
Ryskamp: Isn't that the (inaudible) tandem parking?
M
schuelke: Those units there that exist there, would not allow the
best use of the other lots as single family. They
would not allow it. Just for what is there now, the
percentage of the units - there is more units in
percentage to the number of lots that have single
family houses on them - and if - and I'm just saying
that you are not allowing what is left there that is
not apartment units - you are not allowing that for its
best use changing it to RSF.
Remy: How many vacant lots are there Emeline?
Schuelke: O.k., there are 1, 2, 31 4, 5,. 6 and then you've got 2
small ones that face 11th Street.
Rsykamp: vacant lots in that little area?
Koules: What they show _
Schuelke: Oh, and I'm sorry the one -
Koules: here is one vacant lot in the alley (inaudible) Euclid
northwest corner of the alley between Edgar, Euclid and
north of 10th.
Schuelke: I was merely speaking, "of Edgar Avenue between 10th and
11th, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear -
Koules: (inaudible).
(COMMISSIONERS TALKING WITH EACH OTHER).
Bruner: Those are already single family.
Schuelke: That's what I'm saying - that you count the number of
units that exist in just that one little block and
there is a higher percentage of how many units - so my
estimation is that you zone the other lots to RSF, then
you are creating a value a lesser value for the
property and a very tough means of selling those as
single family residential because of the number of
units that are there.
Bruner: You are not even considering these though.
Schuelke: Yes - you're considering these to going -
Bruner: No - (inaudible)...
Schuelke: O.k., I'm sorry not these, the ones south of there.
Burton:
Bruner:
(COMMISSIONERS ALL SPEAKING AT ONCE).
But they're within the study area.
( Inaubible)
She was looking at these - these aren't in the study
area.
Schuelke: What do you mean?
Ingrao: Neighborhoods in general - areas - neighborhoods.
Schuelke: Well of course we're talking about -
Ingrao: Not just a street here and -
Remy: No we're not - we got into streets.
Ryskamp: Streets tend to form neighborhoods too - but I think
what you are trying to express Dennis is that we need
to recognize that in planning we want to try to deal
with more than a single block or two, in otherwords we
would not want one or two blocks of RMF flowing up in
an RSF zone because (inaudible).
Remy: You can't do it that way.
Ryskamp: Because there happens to be a number of units already
existing - if there is a whole strip, for example well
there or if you are looking at - like this RMF zone
here, or for that matter if you are looking at the
running a line up and down the - what street is that -
Edgar Avenue and having,RMF for a whole section here.
I'm not proposing that /but I'm saying if - -
Burton: That's what it should /be.
Schuelke: Well I'm sorta proposing that along Edgar because
although we are studing only Subarea 1 when you get
into the other subareas that take in the rest of Edgar
Avenue down, you're gonna find that its got that same
environment all the way - just about all the way down.
Remy: Yeah, but you look at it - you drive down those streets
and they look like single family streets. They don't -
Schuelke: Most of them do Ethel. I agree.
Remy: They do - that's what they look like, but you start
(inaudible) a multi family and you're going to have two
story buildings like the people are complaining about
right next to the single family homes.
Schuelke: Unless you disallow two story on an RMF.
Remy: Someone said we couldn't do that (inaudible).
Ryskamp: Well not in certain areas, you have to do it for all
RMF. It is like you put the 70 foot lot (inaudible).
Schuelke: But the point I'm trying to make is that I think it
would be you know bad planning economically and
otherwise to have those lots although they have a
single family residence on them now, within blocks
where they already a high density units built around
them, that you are going to find it very difficult to
use them for their best use as single family.
Remy: Let's take;Subarea 1 - the whole entire Subarea 1 for
«_ -. 1-. - 4 .. 1 R1 mn11 -i
Ryskamp: There is very little in the block from 7th to 8th -
there is only one apartment in that whole block -
Schuelke: O.k.
Remy: There can't be that many because there is only 25 in
the whole thing. The whole area.
Schuelke: And most of them are on that street. Aren't they Mr.
Koules?
Koules: Well (inaudible) to subareas, this is Subarea 1 from
the north side of 8th and this is (inaudible) -
Remy: I'm talking about your whole Subarea 1.
Koules: 1 and 10 or -
Remy: No - your whole Subarea 1 - right.
Koules: So we're talking about Edgar Avenue from less say
roughly 8th up to pass 10th and there (inaudible) there
are some multi residential, ,I think - (inaudible)
apartments here and a mobilehome over here.
(inaudible) between 9th,and 10th. Between 8th and 9th,
we show 1 vacant lot /and l.two, unit multi residential
duplex.
Schuelke: On the corner - is it 8th, 7th or
Koules: No - I'm not far down 7th now, because Subarea 1 goes
from one lot deep on 8th o.k.,.so I'm talking about 3rd
lot on the west side of Edgar north of 8th. That looks
like a two unit building. So between 8th and 9th it is
predominately single family, between 7th and 8th it is
equally single family (inaudible). But then your
concerns may be between 9th and 10th, they do have more
multi residential.
Burton: Even clear over on to
Schuelke: Over to Elm Avenue.
Burton: That whole chunk up there could be RMF. There is a lot
of units up there.
Schuelke: And the only other suggestion that I had was the
easterly side of Euclid backing up to the commerical
area there, because that is very commercial - existing
in commercial use now between 10th and 11th - isn't it?
That rather than having that single family can we
consider - naturally with everybody's approval, that
instead we take Beaumont.Avenue commercial and back it
up in case of future development we can push our
commercial back where there is more room and they are
not building the commercial buildings right.up in front
of the street.
Koules: Do I understand you to say that you want to extend the
Schuelke: But when you revitalize - you have access to deeper
portions - are you not able to -
Koules: I don't know if there is a market for - are you saying
that lots are 140 - 150 feet deep are not enough for
commercial development?
Schuelke: Not for parking and all.
Koules: (inaudible).
Schuelke: Since we took away the parking - we took away the
parking zone didn't we? We don't have a parking zone
behind our commercial like we use to.
Koules: We can do that, we can put the parking zone - but the
parking - the revised parking proposal actually
decreases the number of parking spaces, as the zoning
ordinance now reads it is a building of 2000 sq. ft.
and greater it is one space per 150 sq. ft.
(inaudible). A proposed amendment would make that 250
- one parking space for 250 sq. ft. of gross area. I.
would really discourage expanding any of the commercial
zoning. I think - you might want to look at that at
some point in time later when you do an indepth study
of the existing land dse in the commercial zone - and
that points to expanded use then do it at that time.
Remy: We had it that way once and we got rid of it.
Schuelke: And where we have it zoned commercial on the Magnolia
side which is another subarea, he is recommending going
single family.,
Koules: Single family for that portion north of 8th and multi
residential for that portion south of 8th. (inaudible)
point where the plan is general commercial, no one has
come in to change the zone which would develop
(inaudible). What I'm trying to say is I don't think
there is a demand.- there is a market demand, from what
I see anyway to build back -
Schuelke: But that red line area that is all commercial all the
way - up and down Beaumont Avenue and across 6th
Street, would be nicer being widen so that you have
more room for commercial.
Koules: Well again (inaudible).
Schuelke: That was my only problem with that northerly portion of
Subarea 1 being downzoned to the RSF.
Ingrao: So what you're saying is have that little strip of 4
RMr?
Burton: You see all that up there though - here it is
(inaudible)
Ingrao: I see it.
Remy: And then there is 9 vacant lots still.
Ingrao: ere is a lot of blue but there is a lot more yellow.
if we allow these people to maintain the value oetheir
property -
Remy: And spot zoning.
Burton: That wouldn't be spot zoning.
Remy: Sdr_11 it would be if you keep taking strips out.
Burton: I didn't take a strip out - I took a whole chunk.
Ingrao: But I think there is more - you're pointing out how
much is multi - family but look at how much is single
family. You know 13% of that area is multi - family. If
we can with their upcoming proposal to allow these
people to have that in conformance and to rebuild if it
is destroyed, they aren't losing anything they've got
now - those units are there and they can be there from
now until ever.
Remy: There are only 9 lots in the whole blooming thing_
They don't have much -% hat good is it gonna do have
rezoned it.
Burton: well it is more than 9 lots.
Remy: It isn't according to Steve's chart here.
(INAUDIBLE - ALL SPEAKING AT ONCE).
Go to all this trouble for just 9 vacant lots.
Ingrao: There is 25 developed lots -
Remy: 9 vacant in the whole Subarea 1.
Ingrao: 65 dwelling units out of that - (inaudible).
Ryskamp: (inaudible) talking about that recognize that you don't
have to have a vacant lot - (inaudible) -
Burton: Right - you can.tear a house down -
Ryskamp: You can tear a house down, you can merge two lots and
tear two houses down, you can merge two lots and tear
two houses down, you can merge two lots and build
apartments on - well on one single lot, on the front
those and just turn the houses into part of the
complex.
Burton: And we have schools in that area don't we?
(inaudible) '
Ingrao: No - Subarea 1. There is no school. Wellwood is down
in the other one.
them and they are not all crambed up like a bunch of
barns.
Ingrao: What we're trying to do is develop a character for an
area - is that what we're doing basically.
Schuelke: What type of a home do you envision for single family in
those areas where you've got that high density - you
know apartments. What kind of a single family home an
economically sensible person build next to where they
have already got high density apartment units.
Remy: I think the high density apartments are in between
already existing, single family homes. I haven't seen
that many apartments built period all by themselves
this has been the complaint, they have been bringing the
apartments - sticking them in vacant lots between single
family homes - this has been the complaint.
Ingrao: Kinda like houses being built -
Remy: Yeah.
Schuelke: I realize that has been the complaint -
Remy: Yeah - apartments beirkq'built in the houses - instead of
houses being built by!the apartments.
Schuelke: We have that situation existing now - where we've got
apartment building stuck in the middle of blocks in
between single family - so now.
Remy: Yeah - (inaudible).
Schuelke: Now by taking the rest of the single family - just in
that one little area up there - I'm talking about, what
kind of a home, single family do you envision would want
to go right there where those apartment units - let's
just say between 10th and 11th on Edgar.
Ingrao: Somebody that can afford - that's all they can afford is
a lot that size and they put a nice house on it.
Wouldn't that look odd to look at - if this was all
rezoned and then we had that one little strip up there.
Schuelke: Or a bigger strip of it - where most of the units are.
either from Edgar to the easterly side of -
Remy: Well what are you wanting to put on yours Emeline - you
wanting to put houses or apartments?
Schuelke: What I've got is already there and it is not even within
the subarea.
Remy: Oh, o.k., I thought
Ingrao: It is like people that has been building houses -
Schuelke: I wouldn't want to put anymore than is there. I feel
rh.or what is 'there is sufficient - the three units is
Remy:
That was a different deal - we turned it down - other
got a lot of units built
people approved that so -
Roules:
Burton:
tie voted that down.
your initial
Remy:
Let's get back to what we're doing here.
- I thought we had gone -
Schuelke:
I'm finished with what I have to say.
here all the way
Burton:
Mr. Bruner do you have anything to say.
Burton:
Bruner:
Well I kinda agree that to go single family in
that
entire area wouldn't be in the best interest - I
think
it should be down to the medium family residential.
Well we've got
Burton:
Well there is portions of it that should go RSF.
That
now
new subdivision should be RSF, the block directly
below
is RSF - (inaudible). And that other little chunk in
even in there is RSF. But I fully believe that
that
other should be RMF.
Schuelke: You mean the westerly side of Elm Avenue from 8th - well
whatever section of subarea is above 8th Street there -
all the way up to 10th - 'right.
Burton: Yes.
Schuelke: Where the new subdivision is - is definitely you know
capable of RSF - and then the -
Burton: There is a lot of older - -
Schuelke: And then the southerly side of 10th Street and the
easterly side of Elm —right there - that little chunk
could all be - -
(Inaudible).
Schuelke: Capable of RSF.
Burton:
Yes - but you've
got a lot of units built
out in there.
Roules:
I thought we
had covered that area in
your initial
recommendation
- I thought we had gone -
proceeded from
here all the way
up to Wellwood Avenue - I
believe - -
Burton:
Yes you did, but
that isn't - that was for
- but that is
my opinion.
Remy:
Well we've got
(inaudible) what is your
opinion there
now
Burton: Who are you talking to?
Ingrao: Why don't we take each block rather than jumping around
- why don't we just work from west, earst - o.k., we've
got these takened care of - let's go to 211 and 212.
Burton: well 211 should remain RSF.
Ryskamp: lialf way down the middle of it.
Burton: Middle of Wellwood Avenue.
Ryskamp: No. (inaudible) to the alley in 212?
Burton: All of it is 212.
Ingrao: So - people on Wellwood Avenue would be facing multi
family. You would have single family on Wellwood on the
west side, multi family on the east side.
Burton: Right. You have it over there right in the middle of a
chunk of land - you don't even have a street between it.
Schuelke: With two or three -
Burton: You've got high density in RSF - you don't even have an
alley between (inaudible) Dennis.
Ingrao: Just because we have something now, doesn't mean we
can't try to correct things from not happening -
Burton: But that's the way we recommended to approve it. That
one chunk over there.
Ingrao: Recommended to approve what?
Burton: On number 5 - Subarea 5 - we've got half of it RSF and
half of it RHD.
Ingr.ao: But, the rational for that was to keep the neighborhood
facing each other the same zoning.
Remy: Oh that isn't splitting a property.
Ingrao: We're trying to keep -
Burton: I know it -
Ingrao: We're trying to keep -
Burton: I didn't say that -
ingrao: You know the McCoy and Hatfield thing -
Burton: You're still going to have over there single family next
to high density.
Koules: Well here - if I may make a point, here the commission
voted to change the westerly half of block 5 single
family because of the (inaudible) single family -
Burton: Right - I understand that.
Koules: So we are trying to match both sides of the street.
Remy: Is that - -
Ryskamp: It is not good planning to have a situation where you
have a little tiny block or two of RMF in the middle of
RSF.
Burton: That is not a little tiny block or two. Because - then
this becomes RSF.
Koules: I might remind you - that we are also changing the
general plan accordingly so that you.have a general plan
which might show the whole areas as residential single
family and have pockets in that for a different
designation.
Burton: No not the way - I'm not talking about putting pockets
anywhere.
Koules: No but I'm saying when you change the zoning (inaudible)
but be reminded that you are also changing the general
plan and so the general plan tends to flow in a more
uniform way than the zones do, but this would create
pockets of different plan designations.
Ingrao: If there wasn't anything developed o.k., there is
nothing on any of these lots, just rationally looking at
this, it looks good. I mean you've got flow, you've got
a solid block there, ;-you've got a solid block up here
and then you come down to a medium density and then you
move into your high density, you've got your commercial
and your little manufacturing over there.
Remy: Did you color your picture?
Burton: No.
Remy: Well if you did it would look different.
Burton: But I didn't have any pens.
Ingrao: This looks like it makes sense.
Burton: I know what you're saying -
Ingrao: If you envisioned the whole thing vacant - o.k., and
somebody was planning a city and they drew it out, I
mean you have all these likes together and then you flow
down into your different densities - you've got groups
of neighborhoods that are inconformity with each other.
You know, then start we're gonna put orange up here,
orange down here, you know - blue maybe somewhere else -
I don't know - but this looks like somebody is planning
something. We're not taking what was there and trying
to make it - put it to what on here. It looks like
somebody is planning and that is what we're suppose to
be doing. We not suppose to be - I don't think, we're
suppose trying to fit these people in just because - you
know - we've got 138 of the property owners or 138 of
lots are on a multi - family use and they've 65 dwelling
units as opposed to 148 single family units.
------ I i_�, wA nro trvina to do all this
scrambled eggs to a main course out there. Something
that looks like its got a plan and flow to it.
(inaudible) I know there are units there and they are
congregated on one section but that area - we're looking
at an area - we're not looking at streets. .
way those
Remy: apartments drare built gthey edon't anyway he
obviously apartments,
except those that (COMMISSIONERS TALKING AT THE SAME
TIME).
Ingrao: kept oandsttheydareeoldernunits thalllofltheYe l well
new stuff
stands out -
Schuelke: Because they are two story and they are totally crambed
into the lot - but you have an RMF zone there and you
are going to only allow three units maybe four at the
most and they are not going to be two story and they
are going to fit nicely on the lot where like Ethel
said you can't even really tell where the units are
except those apartment buildings that are there.
Remy: Yeah - but then we have pockets -
Ingrao: Those are the people that have abused - you know - are
takened advantage of what's there.
Burton: (inaudible) your map - you didn't color yours either.
Ingrao: No - but that looks good.
Remy: He likes my coloring -
Ingrao: It makes sense - (inaudible).
Remy: Well I think Steve did a terrific job on this - I think
Ingrao: If this plan isn't even there - say its's 758, 808, 908
correct, it is a point to work from and we could take
that and just - say if we approved it we take and then
we can get the City back into gear again. Get the
Building Department moving, get builders and developers
going - they know where they are at - they know what
they can do. You know - then if we've got to take an
area we can look at an area. You know- a smaller area
rather than half of the City.
Schuelke: That is what we have
years and you never
everytime there is a
zoning. Everytime -
let's do this for now
and look at it closer
there is just too much
Remy: We haven't changed the
the zoning - it was
tried to do for the, past five
get to it. You're always -
new group in, there is a new
you know, and then you say well
so that later on we will take it
and you never get to that point,
to do.
zone Emeline. We didn't change
other people that changed the
Burton:
i1*-'t
those other units detract from the residential single
family (inaudible).
No.
Ryskamp: So you're saying then that - wily would somebody - if
that is the case - and I have the (inaudible) I happened
to of driven through - if that is the. case why would
someone not want to put a single family home or live in
a single family home next to one of those (inaudible).
Schuelke: I was thinking merely of that one block - not the rest
of whole - the total area.
Ryskamp: Oh - o.k.
Remy: Well that one block I don't think there is that many
vacant lots.
Ryskamp: well - vacant lots really isn't the issue Ethel because
you can build - you can tear down a house and build 7
units -
Remy: Yeah - you can tear down -
Ryskamp: And that doesn't happen.
Schuelke: Create a vacant lot.
Burton: And you've got that mobilehome park in there that you
can move them mobilehomes out and you've a bunch of land
you can build on.
Koules: (inaudible) makes a point - this is a plan and what
we're trying to do is to gravitate some of the densities
according to (inaudible). (inaudible) fits in place now
in terms of existing land uses, but may be over the
years you would - I must remind the commission we are
talking about proposing (inaudible) of medium family 16
du /ac, so you will have that housing stock in the area.
It will be laid out in a more uniform pattern -
hopefully, making each subarea, each (inaudible). There
is a good portion of land here that is proposed for
multi family use.
Remy: It is all in the one area. It looks neat.
Burton: (inaudible).
Ingrao: Isn't it obvious.
I'd like to make a motion.
Burton: O.k.
Ingrao: Subarea 1, I make a motion we approve Subarea 1 with
staff's recommendations. You need anything else?
Remy: Are you going to ask -
discussion.
Burton: In a minute.
Schuelke: Are we allowed that?
Burton: Yeah. We have a motion by commissioner Ingrao and
second by commissioner Remy to approve Subarea 1 which
is to change the existing general plan designation from
high density residential to low density residential and
change the existing zoning from residential high density
to residential single family - that is the staff's
recommendation. Now do we have some discussion?
Schuelke: I'm cold.
Ingrao: It'll get hot in here as soon as the heater kicks on.
Burton: Emeline.
Schuelke: I just wanted to look at his map and see if I was
following my (inaudible).
Burton: Oh - o.k. She was just trying to locate it on his
(inaudible).
Remy: (inaudible) whey don't' we take a break.
Burton: We've got a motion on the floor - can't.
Remy: Oh yeah.
Schuelke: I'm envisioning as they were - that if you take.you know
the colors the way they have them - o.k., let's go on by
colors - if you took that same orange which they have
all the way across here - correct - on Subarea 8 -
Burton: Except on here - this -
Schuelke: Except to there o.k., and then you took that same all
the way down to 6th, you've still got as nice of plan
that way as the other way.
Bruner: (inaudible) going down Edgar.
Schuelke: If you take and you go on the center of the alley on the
easterly side of California from and all the way up to
the northerly side of 10th Street - in otherwords it
would be that area there and that area there which would
end up as RMF - correct. And have everything west that -
RSF.
Remy: And what color do you want to make that (inaudible).
Schuelke: I said if you were to take what you have there - the
colors that you are using there and take your orange -
Remy: Orange?
Schuelke: Yeah - to RMF. You are not gonna see high density
apartment units, its compatible with what's existing now
Schuelke: O.k., anyway you have a motion - that was my discussion
- my discussion is over. Thank you.
Burton: Commissioner Ingrao could ask you to take your seat,
please?
Ingrao: (inaudible) majority of single family in that zone - in
that area is (INAUDIBLE - COMMISSIONERS ALL TALKING).
Burton: we have a motion and a second. Is there anymore
discussion?
Schuelke: No.
Burton: Roll call please.
AYES: Commissioners Ingrao and Remy. Schuelke and
NOES: Commissioners Bruner,
Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Burton: Only because I would like - I don't want to see that
chunk of land over in that area RSF. I would prefer to
see that over RMF and retain that below that area - that
in the RSF (inaudible-)" that section right there - I'd
like to see that RSF - but that up there -but like
Emeline she has pointed out a good concept - it would
tie right in with that RMF if we did what she suggested -
where it went up from the top and brought it down.
Remy: Yeah, but (inaudible - more than one speaking).
Ingrao: (inaudible) but that's all single family down that way.
Remy: We're doing all this for just - was it 25 apartment uses
and 9 vacant lots. There is already 148 single family
residences.
Ingrao: 13% just doesn't -
Burton: Now if I - what a minute - is that for Subarea 1 - are
these number of lots in Subarea 1?
Remy: Right.
Burton: Or does that go all the way to 11th.
Remy: No. (inaudible).
Koules: (inaudible) is for Subarea 1 which goes half way from
10th to 11th between the east side of Euclid Avenue and
take west side of Edgar - this line running down this
way, this is Subarea 1. This area outside of Subarea 1
(inaudible) special study area is zoned single family
now (inaudible).
Ryskamp: Did you say that just north of the area within the
special study area - you have a lot with three
apartment units on it?
Ryskamp: But they continue to give you insurance - so you are not
having any problems?
Schuelke: Because I just renew the same policy - they don't go out
and check the zoning every year.
Ryskamp: So that as long as - I just was curious that the fact
that it's -
Schuelke: thatlproblem. IAnd change
I'm allowedinsurance
oncompanies will
zone - Imean loan
- zone, loan -
Burton: Now we've got FHA zone - - me neither.
Audience: (inaudible).
Burton: Yes.
Schuelke: I would like to make a motion - and
Burton: o.k.
Schuelke: It would - my thinking behind my motion also is
including the portion of Subarea 10 - I don't think
we've gone to 10 yet have we?
Koules: No.
Schuelke: No. But if we followed - if we went below into Subarea
10 and we followed that RMF from the most northerly line
of Subarea 1 all the way down to where Subarea 1 ends
which is -
Koules: On Euclid Avenue now?
Burton: Edgar.
Schuelke: I'm going down the alley along'- between California and
Edgar o.k., and taking it - going back up to the point
where the subarea begins on - right there - and coming
all the way down to what is that street - it would be
just north of 6th Street where Subarea 10 ends - the
southerly -
Koules: North of 8th Street.
(INAUDIBLE - COMMISSIONERS ALL SPEAKING).
Koules: I'm sorry - o.k. Subarea (inaudible).
Schuelke: And then preceeding east to the alley between Euclid and
Beaumont Avenue.
Koules: How far down south did you go - to 7th?
Schuelke: I went to - pass 7th to the southerly line of Subarea
10.
that are within that area now. And then, that the
westerly side of Subarea 1 from that point, be followed
as per staff's recommendation to RSF. And the westerly
side of Subarea 10 - - I'm sorry, then - we just zoned -
area 12 we zoned as light industry - is that we did?
Burton: Yes.
Remy: Light Commercial Manufacturing.
Schuelke: Light Commercial Manufacturing on area 12.
Burton: And Light (inaudible).
Remy: And also 11.
Schuelke: O.k., so then I would propose that the remainder of
Subarea 10 -
Burton: George - (inaudible).
Schuelke: also be RMF.
Ryskamp: I was just asking - was that in the form of a motion?
(inaudible).
Burton: Yes, she was making a'motion. Could you ask what?
Ryskamp: I have a question, but wait till motion (inaudible).
Burton: O.k., Do we have a second. I'm not going to repeat that
- it's on tape.
Schuelke: I'm sorry - you need the motion again Cherry. O.k.
And you'll draw that line again Mr. Roules?
My motion is to recommend to City Council that the area
within Subarea A -
Burton: Wait a minute - Subarea A?
Schuelke: Im sorry - Subarea 1 beginning with the most northerly
and westerly line of that subarea and following down to
where Subarea 1 ends - the southerly line of Subarea 1
and continuing south to the southerly line of Subarea 10
in a straight line, then going east along the southerly
line Subarea 10 that being let's see - easterly and
southerly line of Subarea 10 and then going north along
the easterly line of Subarea 10 to a point that brings
us to the southerly line of Subarea 1 and continuing
north to the northerly line which would be the northeast'
line of Subarea 1 to be zoned RMF. It is my opinion
that that area would be more in conformance with its
existing nature as opposed to the RSF.,
Ingrao: What about the rest of the (inaudible).
Schuelke: I really would like to leave the balance of 10 to the
of Subarea 1 -
Burton: With the balance of Subarea 1.
Schuelke: The balance of Subarea 11 that we recommend that that be
zoned to RSF as well as the westerly side of remainder
of Subarea 10.
Burton: O.k., does everybody understand the motion. Do we have
a second?
Bruner: I'll second the motion.
Burton: We have a second. Now does everybody understand the
boundaries that she outlined. O.k. Do we have
discussion.
Ingrao: Yes.
Burton: O.k.
Ingrao: The southeast section - or I guess you would call it the
east section of Subarea 10 that she is proposing to zone
RMF does not predominately - in that use right now - I
don't feel that that would be consistent with that use.
And it would not enhance that neighborhood, it would
change the neighborhood from it's existing (inaudible)
or whatever you want to call it.
Schuelke: But it is the lower part of the City if you take 8th
Street as it's dividing line and it has - it's best use
from - on the southerly side of 8th Street for RMF
closer to the commercial area would.be more (inaudible)
as RMF than it would as RSF in my opinion.
Ingrao: You know the one thing that I see west of Beaumont
Avenue is that is affordable housing - that is
affordable single family housing for new comers into the
area, for young adults in the area - that is a place
that they can get started, get some roots - upgrade the
property, improve the property which alot of residents
have and what we're doing is we're taking away
affordable single family homes.
Burton: What do you consider affordable homes? What price
range?
Ingrao: Probably 65 to 85 thousand dollars.
Burton: Alright then, if that is the case, why would they buy an
older home over there, move in it with all the older
home problems when they can go right up there on
Brookside and buy a brand new one for 70.
Ingrao: Cause of lot size -
(APPLAUSE FROM THE AUDIENCE).
Burton: They don't look at it that way Dennis. The younger
buyers.
Ingrao: I did.
Burton: Well that's you - but the majority -
Ingrao: Well good god I'm not the only person.
Burton: You go up there where they built all those new homes up
there - o.k., I know what you are saying - -
Ingrao: The quality housing isn't there, the atmosphere isn't
there, the neighborhood is not there.
Burton: I agree totally with you - but the buyer - when the
young kid - and they can qualify easier for a home up
there then they can on these (inaudible).
Ingrao: Well why - -
Burton: (inaudible).
Ingrao: They can still buy these - they are still available.
(INAUDIBLE - COMMISSIONERS ALL SPEAKING).
Burton: Let's not all talk at once.
Remy: we had someone at the microphone earlier who came up and
said she liked the single family housing close to the
commercial for the older people - they could walk to and
from the shops and the churches and everything - and - I
don't know I guess she is gone now - but anyway she
mentioned that point - that the single family was more
convenience.
Burton: But many of your older people are living in apartments
now.
Remy: (inaudible).
Burton: Well I know, yes.
Ingrao: I just think that that is an option that we are
eliminating.
Ryskamn: I was just wondering if the motion would be more
compatible if the both sides of Edgar running between
7th and 9th were RSF rather than RMF. That still is an
appropriate zone where you've got your RMF behind your
commercial for a full bloc), up and down Euclid and also
north of 6th - 7th. But that would take those two
blocks which are almost entirely with one exception,
residential single family and leaving them in at area
and I think that's - if I'm familiar enough with the
area - I think that's the area that Dennis' is kinda
talking about the most.
Ryskamp: (inaudible) Because of the amount of RMF. You've got
quite a bit of RMF down there.
Ingrao: Where is the break on the north being made? 9th Street
or 10th Street?
Ryskamp: 9th Street. So you would have RMF in this area coming
this way down to here and then here - this area would
be RMF - yeah, going just like that.
Ingrao: O.k., on 7th Street you're going all the way to
California or or you going to the middle of the alley?
Ryskamp: Going to the alley.
Ingrao: The alley o.k. '
Remy: The alley - which alley?
Ryskamp: Oh, on 7th -
Ingrao: On 7th you're going west - -
Ryskamp: Right down the center of 7th.
Ingrao: You're going west to California or west to the alley?
Ryskamp: West to California because this is residential or this
is light industry right down in that little triangle -
(inaudible).
Burton: It's a hotel.
Ryskamp: (inaudible) - is that what it is? There's a hotel that
whole block -
Burton: A little bitty house right behind it.
Ingrao: A reasonable facsimile.
Ryskamp: So you're talking commercial light manufacturing area
there anyway.
Schuelke: What are you proposing on the east side of California
between 7th and - -
Ryskamp: Would all be RMF. This block down here would be RMF,
this line up here from 7th to 9th on Euclid, both sides
would be RMF and then Edgar and Euclid north of 9th up
to the that line above 11th would be RMF.
Remy: Edgar and Euclid?
Schuelke: Can you draw me a picture?
Koules: We would take your proposal and'leave it in tact to the
point it gets down to 9th Street.
Ryskamp: No - down to Euclid - down the alley. So Euclid on
both sides remains RMF, it just takes these two heavily
c.....:,.. �11 t e „n Anrl anwn Edgar and leaves
Ingrao: That's my map - don't you do anything to it.
Burton: (inaudible).
Schuelke: I just didn't think about cutting it up - it seemed
easier to go all the down and around.
Ryskamp: Well, but that is still a block.
Schuelke: But that makes sense.
Ryskamp: (Explaining area on map to Ethel). (inaudible).
That can be part of your recommendation - is that there
be a change in RMF that would not allow two story
buildings.
Burton: Yeah, (inaudible).
Ryskamp: That is something you could request that we bring back
to you - cause part of that recommendation is an
ordinance change on the RMF zone.
Schuelke: As it is, building in the RMF zone a single story, you
would see at the most three or four units - right, on a
Ryskamp: Steve is better able - -
Koules: I think you couldn't get more than three units,
certainly - I'd say three and that might be tight
(inaudible).
Ryskamp: With single story.
Koules: Yeah.
Ryskamp: How (inaudible) can you get with two story (inaudible).
Koules: I think you could stretch it to four.
Schuelke: Four is the most - so I mean it might even - but anyway
that is a consideration down the road.
Remy: There again it depends on the size of the lot.
Koules: Yes - the size of the lot, size of the units.
Ryskamp: But that could very well be part of your recommendation.
Schuelke: So my recommendation then, my motion well be amended to
read as per Mr. Ryskamp's suggestion.
Burton: Is that agreeable (inaudible)
Schuelke: Without having to follow the - -
Burton: O.k.
We have a motion and a second - an amended motion and a
Schuelke: My motion included that the balance of Subarea 10 be as
per staff's recommendation to RSF.
Ingrao: But now that's the alley between Edgar and Euclid.
Burton: Well she said - she made the amendment.
Ingrao: O.k.
Burton: And Cherry has the amendment - showing the area.
Ryskamp: And that would now be the alley.
Sec: Wait a minute. When Mr. Ryskamp showed you - he just
showed it on the paper - was it stated in -
Koules: I can try and describe it for you if you want.
Burton: As long as she has the map. I think she can pick it up.
I can leave you my map Cherry.
Ingrao: She can keep my map.
Burton: (inaudible) Ethel's is the one that is colored.
O.k., can we have roll call please.
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: Commissioners Ingrao and Remy.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Remy: I request a break here.
Burton: O.k.
Sec: This amended motion did not include the westerly side -
the westerly side is still staff's recommendation.
Ryskamp: Yes.
Burton: The only thing that she did was take this chunk out of
the RMF.
Ingrao: And added this.
She added this.
Burton: Oh yeah.
Koules: Everything west of Subarea 1 and 10.
Schuelke: How many more subareas do we have to -,
Burton: We have two, three, four, seven, eight -
Schuelke: We did seven.
Burton: So we have one, two, three - -
Ingrao: I'd like to tackle a difficult one.
Burton: Four, five - we have five more areas, so we've done
seven.
Viell if we (inaudible) we're gonna be here to 11:00
o'clock and I don't think that is necessary.
Ryskamp: why don't you start eight. See what you get.
Burton: O.k.
Remy: well there is a (inaudible) conflict of eight - why
don't we do something that is easy.
Schuelke: I make a motion that sae tackle Subarea 4 and I further
add to my motion that we recommend as per staff - -
Remy: Why - - -
Schuelke: I'm making a motion here.
That we follow staff's recommendation as to Subarea 4,
from high density to residential single family.
Burton: O.k., we have a motion and Ethel you want to second it.
Remy: Yes.
Burton: O.k., we have a motion to approve staff's recommendation
to change the existing general plan designation of low
density residential and change the existing zoning from
high density residential to residential single family.
Do we have further discussion. Roll call please.
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy
and Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Burton: I would like to see us not get into anything because I
think that 3 hours is plenty and that we start it again.
Schuelke: We have time at our next - we have until our next
regular meeting -
Burton: To finish it up.
Schuelke: Do we want to hold another special meeting between.
Burton: Well now Dennis won't be at the next meeting.
Schuelke: Oh - darn.
Ingrao: No I won't be here.
Ingrao: Happy birthday.
Burton: Your's is the 3rd.
Schuelke: Oh, no, no, no - next week. I don't know why I thought
our regular meeting was the 8th isn't it?
Ryskamp: No, that's the council meeting.
Ingrao: we've got to have this thing over with by the 2nd.
Schuelke: By next week - o.k.
(inaudible).
Ryskamp: That's the goal.
Remy: Are going to have one more special meeting then?
Burton: Do you have a problem with any of the other areas?
Schuelke: Really we went pretty fast through most of them - there
aren't many left. How many are left to do?
Burton: One, two, three, four.
Remy: Yeah - but we spent two hours on two sections though.
Schuelke: Well they were the most controversial though.
Ryskamp: Why don't you see what 8 does.
Burton: Let's go to section 8.
Who wants to throw the first ball.
Remy: I'll make a motion that we recommend to Council
accepting staff's recommendation to change the existing
general plan designation from high density residential
to medium density residential and change the existing
the zoning from RHD to residential multi family and that
is the area described as Subarea 8.
Burton: We have a motion to approve the Community Development
Director's recommendation to the council - do I have a
second.
Ingrao: Second.
Bruner: Second.
Ingrao: Let him take it.
Burton: O.k., we have a motion and a second. Do you have any
discussion?
Schuelke: I just need a couple of seconds to study my notes - if
that is alright?
Burton: Yes.
Schuelke: And then we have high density along Massachusetts - the
other Fago project -
Burton: ido.
Schuelke: Facing Massachusetts right?
Burton: Yeah.
Schuelke: Here is Baker's and the southerly side of -
Burton: Baker's is down here.
Schuelke: Baker's is on 8th and Michigan.
Burton: 8th and Michigan - you're right.
And then they face Massachusetts.
Schuelke: Fago's face Massachusetts. And then we have a 6 unit -
no - a 4 unit next to Fago's and we have - -
Burton: And then we have - -
Schuelke: And then over here we have a real high density project
with 12 units - where - right behind what use to be
Wally Proctors and across from (inaudible).
Ryskamp: Give us streets some of us don't know who Wally is.
Ingrao: You don't know Wally (inaudible).
Burton: We do.
Schuelke: On the easterly side of Massachusetts - I was going to
come to that as soon as I got my bearings here - on the
easterly side of Massachusetts Avenue and the southerly
line of Section 8 there is a 12 unit apartment complex
and directly behind that is a 6 or 8 unit - they're
separate cottages - and then I believe there is a 2
single family houses on 1 lot directly behind those
units and then directly across the street from that we
have a 7 unit Fago's project - -
Burton: And to this side there is a tri -plex with a duplex in
the back.
Koules: (inaudible) vacant lots.
Schuelke: And then the very corner lot - I know it just sold for
high density o.k., I got it -
Burton: And then come over here - -
Schuelke: Michigan Avnnue the southeast corner of Michigan and 8th
is the Baker project - 24 units.
Schuelke: Between 9th and 8th - page 29 would be here.
Burton: On the east side of Michigan.
Ingrao: There is a deep lot that looks like it has maybe 3 units
on it. There is a house on the corner that is a rental.
Burton: [le says there is 3 units on it.
Ingrao: I'm assuming there is 3.
Burton: Then you have Baldi's project.
Schuelke: 28 units here on the east side of Chestnut and 8th and
you have the 6 unit -
Burton: Here is Baldi.
Schuelke: No Baldi's is on the west side of Chestnut.
Burton: Oh yeah, that is right.
Then you have the 6 units here -
Schuelke: The 6 units there and the proposed whatever on each side
of that - and so what I'm thinking is although that 6
unit has not been the'most agreeable project on the east
side of Chestnut, if that were to go RMP that zone, they
only be allowed to build 3 units on each side of that
albatross - right - and that would look awfully funny to
have that 2 story unit with 6 units where maybe what
could happen is with Baldi's building the 28 units
across the street, you could have more of a conforming
neighborhood from that area east to Pennsylvania that is
already zoned RHD and not allow the 6 units at high
density, but you could enhance that one building that is
there now, by allowing units to be built on either side
of it but not as high density as they have now.
Burton:
They can't
build
it there - -
Remy:
They can't
build
- those are 60 foot lots.
Burton:
Those are
60 foot
lots.
Schuelke: But then they've got the 3 lots adjoining. They own the
lot south of them, they own the lot north of them, the
two lots north of them.
Ryskamn: Yeah - any point you can merge two lots, you've gotten
around the 70 foot restriction. Course you've also got
more area there (inaudible).
Schuelke: Well I'm just trying to propose here whether - I'm
confused myself as to whether to look at that from the
Chestnut area over to Pennsylvania and leaving it like
it is and then the - -
Ryskamp: You're saying everything on that line over - RHD.
Schuelke: I'm trying to visualize what the effect -
Burton: There is a lot of apartmentr in there and is a lot of -
they've got units in a row going back -
Remy: Yeah - we know, but we're proposing multi- family.
Burton: I know that.
Schuelke: And I am visualizing the multi - the RMF next to your
high density units in order to enhance the mistakes
that are there already with the high density.
Ingrao: You make more mistakes.
Schuelke: No because with the high density they are not going to
be allowed that many units on the lot anyway.
Remy: Not with the multi - family either.
Ingrao: But they would be allowed two story.
Schuelke: They would be allowed two story with the RMF as well.
Ingrao: Not if we say they can't.
Schuelke: I'm just visualizing you know - three units on both
sides of this great big dense unit in the middle plus
the 28 units — -
Burton: There is a lot of units in that area that has been
built but they've been approved.
Schuelke: And then right behind that the other 7 units.
Burton: Baldi has got 28 going up.
Remy: When did we approve this?
Burton: Long time ago - I wasn't on the commission when it was
approved and I've been on the commission for four years
- three years
Remy: I don't remember seeing his plans.
Schuelke: It was here I remember.
Ingrao: Don't they have a year after approval to get the
project underway?
Ryskamp: How could that be possible? To get a building permit
and approval for four years.
Burton: Well it's been over four years.
Remy: (inaudible).
Burton: Yeah, but it was approved I know four years ago.
Schuelke: It was (inaudible) for an extension.
(INAUDIBLE - COMMISSIONERS ALL SPEAKING).
Ryskamp: Oh that's the one they came in with the extension.
`O.k., they had to have gotten an extension and then be
building by now. (inaudible).
Schuelke: They got an extension.
Burton: But they didn't come here to get an extension did they?
Schuelke: Yes they did.
Burton: Since I've been on the commission.
Schuelke: Oh, I don't know if you've been on the commission, but I
know they ask for an extension.
Burton: I don't remember it. Well see now what they use to do,
I don't whether they are still doing it or not, but in
planning and the building department, all that
constituted starting that project was submitting the
plans.
Koules: Well - I know I've seen that on some of the conditions
of approval - and I questioned it and I would like to
change that - -
Burton: Yeah, and I always argued - I've argued all along that
our code doesn't say that, it says something else. It
says substantial building.
Koules:
Burton:
Remy:
Burton:
Ingrao:
Remy:
That is the way it is in most jurisdictions, you have to
invest (inaudible) foundations in with some work.
Right, I know it was in 84 that he came back and got
that extension.
Yeah, but now it's 88,
extensions?
That's the only one he got.
how did he get so many
Aren't they only for 12 months or 18 months?
Yeah.
Schuelke: I don't know, but the man (inaudible) has a permit and
he is moving the dirt around and he is hiring his Subs
to get started.
Remy: (inaudible) I just ask - how did he get. -it? Because he
didn't - -
Koules: (inaudible) an extension on a building permit because
(inaudible).
Remy: well it's 10:00 o'clock, I'm going to go home and eat
if no one is going to get on this this -
Ryskamp: There is a motion on the floor.
Remy: Well I know.
Burton: Now we have a motion -
Schuelke: I make a motion - I made the motion, right that - -
Burton: No you - there's no motion on the floor - -
(INAUDIBLE - ALL SPEAKING AT ONCE)
Burton: There is a motion to - -
Sec: Yes, there is a motion on the floor and a second.
Burton: There is a motion to approve - -
Schuelke: Oh, we're in discussion - I guess we are tired aren't
we?
Remy: You had to refer to your notes and there we've been, 10
minutes ago.
Burton: Well - call for the question.
Remy: Why don't we take the vote and get on with it.
Ryskamp: That sounded like a call of a question to me.
Burton: Yes. Cherry can we have roll call.
Sec: This is for staff's recommendation.
Burton: Yes.
Sec: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Ingrao, and Remy.
NOES: Commissioner Schuelke and Chairperson
Schuelke.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Burton: That's for that whole
Koules: That's from Subarea 10 which runs from Pennsylvania
Avenue westerly to and including the east side of
Magnolia - does not include the west side of Magnolia.
However, for the west side of Magnolia, the
departments's recommendation is to build multi family
(inaudible).
Remy: Yeah.
Burton: What subarea is that?
Remy: Nine.
Burton: No wonder I couldn't find it - looking over at Emeline.
(inaudible).
Sec: Did you want it back right now Dennis?
Ingrao: Do you still need it?
Burton: Now this Subarea 3 - may I ask you - -
O.k.
Schuelke: I make a motion
zoned RMF and to
take care of 2, 9
Burton: We have a moti,
Subarea 2, 3, and
have a second.
that we recommend that Subarea 3 be
include Subarea 2 and 9. That would
and 3.
Dn to recommend approval of RMF on
9 to residential multi family. Do we
Bruner: I second the motion.
Burton: F2e have a second.
Ingrao: Can we have discussion Patti?
Burton: Yes.
Ingrao: Above 10th, we just have one multi family? What is
that unit there? Is that an apartment?
Koules: I show it as a duplex.
Schuelke: We are not including that though in this Subarea are
we?
Burton: Yeah, that is part of it.
Schuelke: ire said above 10th Street didn't he? Oh, above 10th
and Magnolia.
Ingrao: 2 and 3 go above 10th. You've got 9 up there to.
(inaudible).
Schuelke: We don't want number 2 in there, I'm sorry.
Ingrao:
And
then you've got - o.k., to the west of the
middle
park,
you've residential single family and it
just
seems
like those two there should be - well right
here
the
middle part and then the two next to it, it
seems
like
from 9th north make more sense to have RSF.
Burton:
There
is a lot - already built out in there.
Ryskamp:
Between
9th and 10th, you've got a lot of RHD.
Schuelke:
Is that
9th there Steve - -
Koules:
This
is 9th where I'm adding - -
Burton: Is that agreeable with the second.
Bruner: It's agreeable.
Schuelke: Except - why does the zoning there Steve right where
you have the pointer just now on Magnolia - what is the
zoning - the existing zoning thf�re now?
Koules: The existing zoning is multi - high density residential
(inaudible). That is Subarea 9.
Schuelke: Where was it that you said it zoned commercial
(inaudible.
Koules: (inaudible) no the plan is commercial. The zoning is -
yes.
Ingrao: That is right by the school.
Koules: Yes. The zoning is residential high density but the
plan is general commercial along the whole strip on the
west side of Magnolia from - 6th up to - -
Burton: 11th.
Schuelke: So to conform to the'general plan, we would have to
take that little sliver between 6th and - what street
is that?
Koules: North of 8th.
Schuelke: O.k., how about just (inaudible) to the center of 8th
Street or the north - or the south side of 8th.
Koules: one lot deep.
Schuelke: And conform it to the general plan as commercial or
leave it like you're saying RMF and deal with the
commercial later - is that what you're saying?
Koules: My recommendation is to change the general commercial
on the plan to medium - - (inaudible).
Schuelke: O.k., so we're going to comply with the general plan.
Koules: Yes. (inaudible).
Schuelke: In accordance with whatever the result is of this.
Then RMF - -
Remy: Well we've already approved this multi family.
Ingrao: No we didn't.
Remy: we didn't vote (inaudible).
Ingrao: No (inaudible).
n..r +..n Nina
Koules: The balance of 2 and 3 and 9 -
Burton: To RMF.
Koules: Yes.
Ingrao: What is on the corner of 9th and Michigan. Cause
you've that -
Remy: That school - school property there at that - -
Koules: (inaudible).
Burton: It is that continuation school.
Ingrao: 0.k.
Remy: It use to be the ballpark.
Koules: 9th outside of this Subarea right.
Ingrao: The southwest corner of 9th and Michigan - that is the
school?
Koules: Southwest corner, I have on 9th and Michigan a single
family house on the southwest corner and a duplex
behind that single family house. Everything else in
that block is shown as single family.
Ingrao: Can I ask you a question. On your recommendation some
rational you've been giving us to have (inaudible) unit
spacing like in it's conformity, o.k., on Michigan -
between 8th and 9th we've got that one section that is
RSF to the east.
Koules: To the east, yes.
Ingrao: The northeast section.
Remy: That isn't in the - -
Ingrao: I know it is not in the study area, but why wouldn't we
want that - the southwest corner to be RSF.
Koules: Well that is my recommendation.
Remy: Yeah. This is his recommendation.
Koules: For that whole area.
Ingrao: Alright - cause Emeline took the whole thing - is that
right Emeline.
Ryskamp: Made it RMF.
Burton: See that corner over there directly - that right there
(CHANGE OF TAPE).
Koules: 4 lots.
Ryskamp: 4 lots and most of those seem to be duplexes, right.
Koules:
Yes,
we show - this
is a triplex, a duplex, a duplex, a
from Michigan to
duplex, a duplex -
yes, I'd say that
the
Park of the five lots shown as multi - four are
duplexes
and one is
a triplex.
Ryskamp:
That
is primarily residential single family.
Koules:
And
you've got the
park then this open area. That's
why
we recommended
residential single family.
Schuelke:
Well
it could be a
continuation of the RMF up that way
and
then leave that
as the RSF.
Ingrao: Leave this alone.
Ryskamp: With the park being the line.
(inaudible).
Ingrao: Leave this RSF. This line across like this, bring it up
to 10th -
Schuelke: To 10th - stop at 10th And then you would have single
family all the remainding part -
Ryskamp: So in those blocked areas you would have single family
in the three subareas which (inaudible) single family
north of 10th and east of the park.
Xoules: You might want to consider on the west side of the park,
I know there is some (inaudible) there, but you have one
vacant lot looks like a duplex on the corner and you
would have single family character on both sides of the
park.
Ingrao: We're going one lot north on 8th? Is that what we're
doing Emeline?
Remy: Why are we doing that?
Ingrao: Because we have the south of 8th - is that what you're
saying one lot north of 8th.
Ryskamp: That is already included -
Koules: Well we've already took an action on that -
Remy: Yeah, but why are going up here with multi family - just
this little bit?
(COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING AT ONCE)
Burton: We're saying leave that RSF -
Ingrao: I mean her motion originally was to change this.
Burton: Yeah.
Ingrao: So this lot is still RSF.
Remy:
Well this is
subsection something else
here.
Ingrao:
That is three.
Burton:
Yeah - this
is 3 and this 2 or - -
Ingrao:
So this will
stay RSF here.
Burton:
It would be
just this chunk right here
that would go - -
Ingrao:
(inaudible)
just that little piece and
this piece down
here.
Burton:
Yeah - that
would be RMF. I could go
for that.
Schuelke:
Section 2 -
all of Section 2 would be
RMF - correct.
Burton: Yeah.
Except for north of 10th.
Schuelke: Except for the north - -
Ryskamp: Basically, what you described would be Subareas 9, 21 3
and 9 would be RMF except those areas within those
subareas north of 10th and east of the park would be
RSF. Unless you want to move that RSF over and let
Orange on the other side of the park - so that you have
that whole - - (inaudible).
Burton: No, I like this - because that flows.
Remy: Subarea 9 - there is only (inaudible) one multi
residential use in it.
Burton: That's his recommendation is to go to RMF.
Schuelke: RMF.
Ryskamp: That is on commercial.
Remy: Oh, that is an extension of 5th.
Burton: Yes.
Ingrao: All we're doing is picking this up like this and bring
it up and over and that is it. So what you have is this
one, this one, this one, this one, and this one go RMF.
This would be RSF - this would all stay RSF.
Burton: See like that.
Ingrao: That looks good.
Bruner: That looks good.
Remy: (inaudible).
Burton: Do you want to revise your motion?
Schuelke: Oh gee, I think for Cherry's sake yes.
Sec: Well first of all this is for Subareas 2, 3 and 9 - all
going to be RMF with the exception of the north part of
10th and the east part of the park which will be RSF.
Schuelke: Right.
Burton: I've got it here on this map - I'll give you.
Schuelke: The north part of 10th Street which will be RSF Cherry
is Subarea 2.
Koules: And a portion of 3.
Burton: Yeah - a portion of 3.
Schuelke: Does 3 go up to l'Oth?
Burton:
Yeah - portion of 3.
Ryskamp:
Three goes all the way to 10th.
Schuelke:
Yes it does, I'm sorry.
Burton:
Three goes like this.
Schuelke:
;o both of those subareas 3 and 2 and 3.
Ryskamp:
So within Subareas 9, 2 and 3 everything is
RMF except
north of 10th and east of the park.
Burton:
Right. O.k. We have a motion and a second.
Let's have
roll call please.
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke,
Ingrao, Remy
and Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Ingrao:
Let's quit while we're winning.
(inaudible - all speaking).
The only ones I'm going to miss - - o.k. we've got -
is 2 right?
Burton:
We've done them all. ,
Ryskamp:
We've done all of them now?
Good iob.
Ingrao: Those people went away happy I take it.
Burton: I don't know.
Ingrao: They applauded.
Burton: Maybe because we finished something.
Ingrao: We did that whole thing in one night.
Remy: We didn't do the whole thing.
Ingrao: We did the whole thing - we're done.
Sec: This was all in concept - remember?
Burton: Yes, this was only tentative.
Cherry will have it typed for us and ready to go for
next week.
Ingrao: George can I get my vote in -
Ryskamp: (inaudible).
Schuelke: And the City Council will do (inaudible).
Burton: No.
Remy: well why don't you just come in and vote and go home.
Ryskamp: Can you come in for that vote?
Ingrao: If it is takened quickly.
Ryskamp: Assuming there isn't somebody who decides to change
(inaudible).
(COMMISSIONERS ALL SPEAKING AT ONCE).
Remy: what are we voting on now?
Burton: No I don't want to vote on it now.
Remy: What.
Burton: Cause I want to see it.
You want these maps back ?.
You want these requests to speak?
Sec: Yes.
(INAUDIBLE - MUCH TALKING AND NOISE).
Burton: We'd like this concept for each subarea, the motion -
set out -
Sec: I'll try and get these minutes done because I can't get
Ingrao:
We just
saw
them all.
Burton:
But we
also
changed them.
Ingrao:
I know
- we
voted on the changes.
Burton: Yeah. That's what she is going to bring back.
Ingrao: So what's there to vote then - I'm asking, I'm not -
Schuelke: I am too, I'm not understanding what we have to vote on
now.
Ingrao: what else is there to vote on.
Burton: If they've got to draw up the whole recommendation.
Ryskamp: What is the issue?
Sec: Well actually you could all vote on it, you've all made
a decision pertaining to each subarea.
Schuelke: we all voted within each subarea, why do we have to vote
again?
Ingrao: Why do we have to vote ?'
Ryskamp: You have to have a vote on the negative declaration as a
whole and I thought we established at the beginning as
a tentative - it could be done right now, if there is a
motion to that effect to approve as a final
recommendation all the tentative recommendations to pass
the negative declaration, then it is done.
Ingrao: I make that motion.
(inaudible).
Burton: well I was just thinking that if you saw it after it was
all put together - maybe you know you might have a
change of heart - I don't know.
Ingrao: Yeah, but the only controversial area was this right -
and Ethel and I was were the only ones objecting to it—
and we already-what's there - I mean I'm willing to get
it over with.
Burton: O.k.
Ryskamp: Somebody make a motion.
Schuelke: we haven't adjourned our meeting have we?
Burton: No.
Schuelke: O.k. '
Ingrao: what do we have to say in the motion? I'll make the
motion that George said.
Burton: Recommendations.
Ryskamp: Recommendations made this evening as final
recommendations -
Remy: Even though we didn't approve of them.
Ingrao: She did.
Y,oules: No, no, no, only the ones we approved.
Ryskamp: Well - as a group even though you may have voted against
it, we need a single final recommendation to go to the
council that was the way we agreed it would be done.
Remy: Oh, o.k.
Ingrao: we are on record objecting to that one thing - but it
still got approved.
Sec: That will show in the motion that you objected.
Koules: Who seconded it?
Schuelke: I seconded it.
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy
and Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
Schuelke: Did that motion include the approval of the negative
declaration?
Ryskamp: Yes it did.
Ingrao: See now she can finish her story. She doesn't have to
say to be continued.
Burton: Now, could I have a motion to adjourn.
Remy: I make that motion.
Schuelke: You know this was a meeting where everybody just kinda
stuck to the issue - -
Ryskamp: You did an excellent job tonight.
Ingrao: Council doesn't even know it, they left.
Meeting adjourned at 10:29 P.M.
BE:AUMONT PLANNING COai=IISSION
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 2, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, February 2, 1938, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting was called to Order at 7:03 P.Id.
On Roll Call, the following
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke,
Commissioner Ingrao was excused.
commissioners were present:
Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Attorney Ryskamp was also present at this meeting.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Oral Communication: None.
2. Director's Report: CDD Koules reported that on January 25,
1988, the City Council reviewed Ordinance 652 on parking and
referred it back to staff and commission to look
specifically at three areas of concern:
(1) Alley backup requirement;
(2) Handicap parking;
(3) Parking standards for commercial.
These items will be takened into consideration by staff and
will be brought back to the commission - hopefully at the
next meeting of February 16, 1988.
3, 87- Pt: -5, Am. $3, (PM 22620) & 87-ND -32, division of land
into 2 parcels, located at the S /L' Corner of Brookside and
Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Ron Whittier.
CDD Y.oules informed the commission that this item was
continued over from the last meeting, whereby, Mr.. Whittier
had noted that he possibly would go with a different layout
on this project; however, ,dr. Whittier called and stated
that he was going to proceed with the 2 parcel split.
Recommendation at the last meeting was to approve the split
with the oiginal conditionsm O
proceeded to read the Dotsonal I
City Engineern
dated September 1, 1937.
The commission discussed this matter with concern over the
parcel - possibly being - leveloped as such instead of a
REID
single family subdivision; also full improvements were
discussed for both parcels.
m,,� n„t,lic hearing was closed; however, it was agreed by
Minutes of PC Meeting
February 2, 1988
Page 2
assessment on each parcel.
Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Whittier that the
commission's concern is if the lots are split and Parcel 2
develops first, there wouldn't be any control over Parcel 1
when it comes in.
Ron Whittier, commented that if the commission would put a
condition on where if Parcel 2 develops before American
Housing, Parcel 1 is required to have a blacktop frontage
road; if American :Mousing should develop before Parcel 2
there will be a blacktop access road into Parcel 2; feels it
is unfair to impose all the conditions of development now
when Parcel 1 wouldn't develop for another 2 or 3 years; if
American Housing develops first, then condition could be
waived because it would have a good access road.
Ron wnittier, continuing to speak commented that Mr. Dotson
and Valerie Beeler both felt that the frontage road issue
had been resolved.
CDD Koules commented that he had spoken with Mr. Dotson this
same day and Mr. Dotson felt that full improvements should
be shown on both parcels of which he (Koules) concurs.
Attorney Ryskamn explained that when you say "frontage road
improvements" does not mean "full improvements.
Commissioner Schuelke commented that she felt that the
proposed project should come before the commission, with the
required improvements and then look at the whole project
does not want to condition just the parcel map.
On motion by Commissioner. Schuelke to deny 87 -PM -5, Am. #3
(PF 2.2.620) and also deny the Cdegative Declaration 87- PdD -32;
seconded by Commissioner Remy with the following findings:
1) Concern about landlocking Parcel 2 without giving
it legal and physical access;
2) !'itigation has not been given in the revised
conditions of approval .>y the City Engineer;
3) Sensibly, Parcel 2 should also be zoned commercial
since Parcel 1 is zoned. commercial - this would
allow more acreage for a nice shopping area.
Motion failed for lac]; of a najorj ty with the following roll
call vote:
AYE,: Commissioners Schuelke, and Remy.
NOES: Commissioners Bruner and Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABS'NT: Commissioner Ingrao.
Minutes of PC Meeting
February 2, 1988
Page 3
in the market place in California and in
Beaumont /Banning that the entry level type home for the
young person, a 79, 80, 85 thousand home is a "hot" ticket;
if conditions are put on where the whole project has to have
full improvements, the partnership that he represents will
have to pull out of escrow; market studies indicate that in
another two years apartments will be the big thing;
condition of this parcel map is that he deeds to the City
40'access road.
CDD i:OUles commented when creating two parcels, the
improvements should be on both parcels. It is unusual to
create two parcels and hold off on one with improvements
until a later. date - not done this way. In terms of
economic viability if there is an improvement, it will be
passed on to the buyer - money is not lost.
Chairperson Burton commented that if the commission approved
the parcel map they would be incorporating the original
conditions from the City Engineer with Commissioner Schuelke
commenting that Mr. ?Vhittier is opposed to this - also if
she would agree to a parcel map split she felt that
complete improvements should be required; however, she is
onoosed to the parcel map until she sees what the applicant
wants to do with the lower parcel.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to deny 87 -PM -5, Am. #3
PM 22620 and deny Negative Declaration 37 -ND -32 for the
division of land into two parcels with the same findings as
set out in the above motion; seconded by Commissioner Remy.
Motion carried for denial with the following roll call
vote:
A=: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Remy.
NOES: Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABS ^NT: Commissioner Ingrao.
Commissioner Schuelke commented that she would like to have
staff look into the zoning for the General Plan as well as
the re- zoning of Parcel 2 to commercial zoning.
CDD Koules commented that upon request by the commission
staff could initiate a study pertaining to the General Plan
as well as the re- zoning of Parcel 2 into commercial.
OUT OF SEQUENCE:
5. Verbal report and discussion by Community Development
Director reference Oak Tree Center - 87- PP -16. Applicant,
D. Christante.
CDD Koules informed the commission that this project was
approved October 6, 1987 for the construction of a 12,000
�, ff onrnercial building. At the time of review by staff
Minutes of PC Meeting
February 2, 1933
Page 4._
should have 1 parking space for every 150 sq. ft., of sales
or display area and this project was represented as being a
professional building. When you approve a building in a
commercial zone, the building can be used for any commercial
use that is allowed in that zone; thus, the reason for
bringing it to the attention of the commission since it also
is a crucial corner. He would like to negotiate with Mr.
Christante in order to accommodate the 10 feet dedication
that Mr. Dotson has asked for or maybe work out some narking
because of his concern that if the market is such that
office profession does not go in there, applicant has the
legal option and rightfully so to out retail stores and at
this point the parking would be inadequate. Fie feels that
the plot plan was approved in violation of the zoning
ordinance because the zoning ordinance calls for a greater
number of spaces. Also, he noted that he is looking for
some direction from the commission on how to handle this
matter.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the parcel merger should
have been brought before the commission at the time of
approval of the project. The issue was raised in the
engineer's letter but was not addressed on the map which
would invalidate the map. Further, if this plan was
constructed as is, a lot could legally be sold (other
building) and then the project would definitely not have
adequate parking. lie noted that you should require a parcel
merger as part of the approval, since it is not legally
approved because of the parcel merger issue, dedication
issue and the parking issue.
CDD Koules feels that in this case a lot merger could be
accomplished by simply moving the building over the common
lot line; otherwise we would have to process something
similar to a parcel map.
Don Christante, 8760 Camino Del Norte, addressed the
commission commenting that: talked to Valerie Beeler
numerous times as to what was going in, what was required
and the lot merger was discussed; she was under the
impression that if a form was frilled out this would
eliminate the lot line making it one parcel; feels that this
is a legal maneuver because it has riot been accomplished yet
and can be rejected; was aware that it had to be merged and
was going to take care of this; has spent thousands of
dollars based on the approval; feels it is unfair; asked
about approves: plans in the past being checked.
CDD Koules commented that Mr.
however, t "r. Christante is
familiar with the regulations
some weight too.
Don Christante, commented tha
hnninht what t.he�reauirements
Christante has a valid point;
also a contractor and is
and feels this should be given
t he would like to find out
are.
Minutes of PC Meeting
February 2, 1988
Page 5
repealing Section 17.80.010 of the Beaumont Municipal Code
and adding Section 17.80.010, dealing with non- conforming
uses. The following corrections were made:
First Page 43 should read: "up to 5 years per Section
17.60.200."
Second Page ,$E should read: "building permit has been
legally issued. . ."
Second Page $I should read: "non- conforming. ."
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that they have
three alternatives - either to not pass this at all tonight,
pass it for 10 years or you pass it for 5 years with the
additional section to the ordinance that would modify the
abatement schedule to provide if any sign oven ]50"0 dollars
in value 1500.01 or more be five years and the rest
of the abatement schedule. It can be passed this way this
evening and he could then modify it.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke that Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Beaumont repealing Section
17.80.010 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and adding Section
17.80.010, dealing with non - conforming uses, with the
modifications as stated by Attorney Ryskamp regarding the
Abatement Schedule in Title 17, under Section 17.60.200;
seconded by Commissioner. Bruner. Motion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Ingrao.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
P ing ommion Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 16, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Mleeting was called to Order at 7:07 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Schuelke was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Election of Officers:
Chairperson Burton was re- elected as Chairperson for the
year 1988 with Commissioner Remy elected
as Vice
Chairperson.
2. Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Planning
Commission
Meeting of January 19, 1988;
Approval of the Minutes for the Special Planning
Commission
Meeting of January 26, 1988; and
Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Planning
Commission
Meeting of February 2, 1988.
Minutes Of January 19,.1988:
Correction on Page 4, second paragraph, line 2,
the word
"deep" should be inserted after 145'; otherwise,
the Minutes
stand as submitted.
Minutes of January 26 1988:
Minutes stand as submitted.
Minutes of February 2, 1988:
Correction on Page 5, paragraph 5, line 6, the word " strikk"
should read "strike "; otherwise, the Minutes stand as
submitted.
3. Oral Communication: None.
4. Director's Report:
CDD Koules informed the commission that the City Council on
0 inoo Dccnlntinn at its first reading
/ BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MARCH 15, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, March 15, 1988, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Ingrao, Remy and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Schuelke arrived shortly thereafter.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
Approval of Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of February 16, 1988, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
Director's Report: CDD Koules noted that at the meeting of
the City Council on March 14, 1988, the City did received
some Community Development Block Grant Funds in the sum of
$75,920.00 which is being used for renovation of the gym.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
87 -TM -8, (Tr. 23161) & 88 -ND -2, for a proposed project
consisting of 201 lots of single family homes, located north
of 14th Street, and west of Cherry Avenue and variance 87 -V-
8 for a reduction of minimum lot depth on Lots 183 and 184.
Applicant, wDS Development, Inc.
CDD Koules presented the staff report commenting that this
item concerns an ownership of 63 acres in size on the north
side of 14th St., and both sides of Palm Avenue. At staff's
suggestion, the applicant did redesign the project to
eliminate any possible further commercial use on the corner
of 14th and Palm Streets and the proposal now is for 201
lots. Also, there is a Variance for two lots (183 & 184)
because of the unique situation due to the peculiar shape of
the lot. Further, in the conditions, there is a condition
that the applicant would not oppose a City initiated re -zone
of the land which is CRb zoned.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:10
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
t4r Jerry Rennebeck Civil Engineer, for the project
addressed the commission commenting that when this project
_1 ._. « "- Ynnl oa and the City
PC Meeting
March 15, 1988
Page 2
matter back to the commission for discussion.
commission discussed this project at great length with
The
The Koules commenting that this was the first time he had
CDD he Landscape District and that there is no
heard of t this in the conditions. It was his
reference he
understanding that the developerurtherWneunderwthednewly
responsible for the landscaping.
adopted Landscape Section under Private Open Space Yard
Areas "required front and side yards shall be continually
maintained by the property owner."
Frontage of 40 foot lots were discussed with the feeling
that this would possibly cause street parking congestion.
There was also discussion pertaining to sidewalks, property
landscape areas and block walls with the recommission
requesting staff to check Devcorp's project ro
per
were putting in block walls, sidewalks and the p P
landscape areas.
On motion by Commissioner Ingrao to send this project back
to staff and developer in order for it to be redesigned to
conform with basic requirements of Title 17 and further
reconsider Mr. Dotson's request for the portion of land
south of the high school and north of the easement between
Cherry Avenue and Michigan to be dedicated to the school;
secnded Commissioner vote: carried
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5, An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont repealing Chapter 17.90
and Section 17.14.005 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and
adding Chanter 17.90, Sections 17.12.170 thorugh 17.12.200
and Section 17.14.005 dealing with Zoning Amendments, Change
of Zone and General Plans.
Attorney Johnson distributed Page 5 of this Ordinance,
commenting that there was a change eliminating 17.12.180
(2) B. Further, they were in the process of reviewing all
of Title 17 chapter by chapter to amend and make corrections
bringing it up to date with the existing Government Code of
the State of California - as far as substance itself,
Attorney Johnson didn't feel there had been any great
changes; however, they were doing a lot of "clean up" work.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:38
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak and there being none, she then closed the
public hearing at 7:40 P.M., turning the matter back to the
PC Meeting
March 15, 1988
Page 3
Rd., Zoned C -G. Applicant, Loren Bisel.
CDD Koules presented the staff report noting that the
commission had already approved this sign permit and on
12/22/87 a building permit was issued. Subsequently the
agent came in for a billboard representing Kunz 8& Co.,
same 50 additional billboard 0 feet to the east of this
for an s
billboardlanniisc prompted some adbillboa�d beangd allowed meby
at the planning
right as was represented by the app licant. Upon looking
ermit and
more closely at the prior issuance of this sign p
discussion with Attorney Ryskamp, it was discovered that
this sign permit was granted in violation of Title 17. On
February 24 and 25, 1988, he (Koules) and Mr-
Building Inspector field checked the site and saw that no
sign. of this on the
work had commenced on the constructisna statement thatreads
front of the building permit
"cessation must start work within 60 days of the issuance of
the building permit ". A certified letter was then eTmitedwas
the applicant informing p him that
his contactgstaff before
void and directed him (applicant)
considering a placement of the billboard -ono 3 /14 /88,stCDD
has not heard from the applicant. Also,
Koules, City Manager Bou dstand BuildingInspectothatTurner was
went to the site p n
received in the a.m., stating that the billboard was
constructed over the week -end. The following day, March 15,
1988, Building Inspector Turner again went to the site and
took photos of the sign. Mr. Koules commented that he could
not attest to the sign being constructed over the week -end;
however, upon checking the site about a week and half ago,
the billboard was not there. Mr. Koules noted that the
billboard was constructed after the applicant received the
City's certified letter and that the app licant was
of tonight's agenda; it had been discussed with Attorney
Ryskamp and City Manager Bounds and that he (Koules) feels
action should be taken against the applicant.
Attorney Johnson commented that since the asign htimebeen
built, reconsideration of the sign permit is
probably moot; however, they are looking into remedies the
City can bring in order to have the sign removed.
CDD Koules asked that since this sign permit was granted in
error shouldn't the action that was taken on December 1,
1987 be invalidated, with Attorney Johnson commenting that
the commission could reconsider their previous action.
Chairnerson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:54
p,M ., and there being no one in the audience wishing to
speak, she then closed the public hearing at 7:55 P.M.,
turning the matter back to the commission for discussion.
on motion b Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
_ y--- :,,a the action taken on December 1, 1987
PC Meeting
March 15, 1988
Page 4
Beaumont. The area, or areas, hereinabove referred to
are described as follows: feet on
a. The areas extending five hundred (50a highway
either side of the property line °f Freewayg y
Freeway-
designated as a State Freeway or County roll call
Motion carried unanimously with the following
vote: rao, Remy and
AYES:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ing
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: An Extension of one Cougar Mountain
e year requested by
7. 1988 to March 6, 1989, Applicant,
Apartments from March 5,
Michael M. Slagle. approval
report recommending aPP as
CDD Koules presented the staff rep approval
of this extension with the same cc pp Commented
approved b} ht's agenda was due to
that the reason this item was on tonig
of the commission meetings•
a cancellation of one Chairperson
The commission questioned this extension per taining a
ainingto "Plot
Burton reading a quotation from Title lro project never brought
plans" with it being noted that this p J
in the improvement plans intended for Palm Avenue.
Attorney Johnson suggested that the commission continue vthis
matter and request the applicant appear and g
reason for not pursuing his project, with Commissioner
reason
Schuelke suggesting that he also give an up
project. °n
project.
seconded by Commissioner
On motion by Commissioner Remy,
Bruner, to continue this item to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of April 5, 1988, and the applicant be
notified to be present at the he giving an update and
f
substantiating valid reasons or the extension, also
commission shall be able to review update. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Ingrao, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
g B Appeal on Minor Plot Plan 88- MPP -2, Greyhound Bus Stop.
__,A u —rnAn_
PC Meeting
March 15, 1988
Page 5
Mr. Kovak's operation; creating a traffic hazard; areaUnot
really suited for station and other places discussed;
approval; left turning for buses.
Mr. Jim Jeffre , 575 W. Count Line Rd., Calimesa, addressed
the commission commenting that: bigger office and
completely remodernized inside; interior waiting room with curb
seats, etc., use to be Ken's Lock no one else couldwapark;
red 'in until about 2 years ago
instigated the 15 minute parking; tore clown building in back
and cleaned the whole building; last bus is at
a cl d up; repa t
nd eane and at this time people would have to
outside.
Irene Testerman, 655 Ma nolia Avenue, Beaumont,
addressed
the commission commenting t at: she was the one that
initiated the petition; she, brother
anY sarksrinwfront0 ofa
470 E. 6th St., which the bus com p an p they
back when they first red curbed it about one year ago,
painted all but about 10 feet of the front of her building;
has lost tenants because of the fumes of the buses;
visibility of her buildings is cut down by
businesses have moved in and out on the corner on their own;
suggested a new location for the bus depot across from
Dick's V.W. Repair.
Sall Hapster, 490 E. 6th St., Beaumont, addressed the
commission commenting that s e has no objection to the bus
station but does object to the buseledllastlweeklduelto a
driveway at any time; p olice affic
bus not only blockin he daskedatheudriverltolmoveohetrwould
on 6th Street, Y
not.
Ron Mor an, 333 N. Palacedro, Diamond Bar, addressed the
commission commenting: would li e to see what was there two
years ago; needs, where their property starts to the corner
of Beaumont Avenue to be red which would give them 100 feet.
On motion by Comm issioner Schuelke to approve the
application for business license with a c
established and a parking lon at area be
traffic route be
f's determination after considering the
designated per staf
other property owners to the east of the buildiarking.
relieve them of the infringement on their p r•
Staff to notify in writing the bus company asking they
inform their drivers of the traffic route direction, the
parking designation; seconded by Commissioner Ingrao.
It should be noted that it was agreed upon that the area
from Magnolia to the new bus stop be painted green and from
this point on to the end of 6th and Beaumont Avenue to be
painted red for the bus area.
_..,�� �nrPd. that one year review would be only ^ifYthere
PC Meeting
March 15, 1988
Page 6
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Commissioner Remy.
None.
None.
There being no further business before the
meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
commission, the
Respectfully submitted,
7� � mm��on Secretary
Planning
TRA14SCRIPT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATED MARCH 15, 1988
RE: RECONSIDERATION OF SIGN PERMIT NO. 87- SNP -13, VIOLATION OF
TITLE 17, SECTION 17.60.015, LOCATED AT 950 WESTERN KNOLLS RD.,
ZONED C -G. APPLICANT, LOREN BISEL.
Listed as Item No. 6 under Public Hearings on Agenda dated March
15, 1988.
Ch. Burton:
Section 117 .60.015, located Sign
there?
violationrof1Titlef17,
Knolls Rd., Zoned C -G. Applicant,
at 950 Western
Can I have a staff report?
is
Loren Bisel.
CDD Koules:
Yes. On December 1st, o rthe tOev cominirecto o the
p
for
City of Beaumont, uP a
commission approved
tohe look
recommendation your
950 Western Knolls Road and
billboard sign at
December 22nd a building permit
consequently, on
billboard. Subsequently, the
was issued for that
in for a billboard - -
same agent came
Ch. Burton:
Excuse me Steve, I don't think your mike is on -
CDD I:oules:
I uoneDecembero22nd forutheebillboard
bui lding ing permit
December 1st by your commission, the
authorized on
in representing Kunz & Co., for an
agent came
billboard 500 feet to the east of this
additional
billboard. That prompted some discussion at the
to the
counter and there was some disagreement as
by right as was
billboard being allowed
by the applicant. Upon looking more
represented
I discovered after
closely at the prior issuance,
the city attorney about this in the
talking to
that that sign permit, the one we're
in
meantime,
discussing tonight 87- SNP -13 was granted
17 that
violation of Title 17, because Title says
specifically allow outdoor
the zone must
- the C -G zone where this property is
advertising
located does not specifically call out that. Also
from
additionally, there is a 500 foot restriction
the state highway or county highway. In any
25th, I
even, on February 24th and again on
the site with Paul Turner, Building
field checked
Inspector and we saw that no work had commenced on
building
the construction of the sign and on the
the building permit there
permit - on the face of
that the building permit in order
is a statement
to stay valid cessation of work must start within
60 days of the issuance of that permit, applicant
the
registered letter was sent to
his building permit was void and
informing that
thats contained in your package and directing him
to contact the staff before considering a
heard
placement of the billboard. I have not
the applicant during
staff has not heard from
the whole course of this.
This afternoon - or this morning I should say,
Paul Turner, the Building Inspector went out and
took photographs of the billboard because we
received a call Monday informing staff that the
billboard was contructed over the weekend - now I
canot aoweektandthalfnagoiandeit checked
on.
Ch. Burton: Now
it is
there?
CDD Koules:
is
nat.
amThis swas
done photographs
after the
for
you
tohe look
Transcript of PC Meeting
87- SNP -13
March 15, 1988
Page 2
registered letter had been received and the sign
receipt was sent back to the City. The applicant
was of course informed of tonight's agenda item
and we have not heard from him.
Unk.
So what are you going to do?
CDD Koules:
Well, what we're doing is we're discussing this
with Mr. Ryskamp - I discussed this with Mr.
Ryskamp and with Mr. Bounds last night and we want
to take action against the applicant. Moses
Johnson may wish to speak to that. My opinion is
that this is - we informed the applicant - I had
several discussions with the attorney for the
second - which we are not discussing tonight and
since the applicant here also represented the
second company which came in for another billboard
- we issued them a letter denying their request.
Com. Ingrao:
Is this applicant not here tonight?
Ch. Burton:
Is the applicant here?
Atty Johnson:
The only thing that I would have to say at this
point, seeing how the sign has been built,
reconsideration of the sign permit at this time is
probably moot - I mean there is not a whole lot
that can be done - we are looking into the
remedies the City can bring as far as having the
sign removed at this point.
Ch. Burton:
Thats what I was going to suggest.
CDD Koules:
I might add to that, when this agenda item was
prepared we did not know the sign - well the sign
was not up - you know and again the first
knowledge we had the sign being put up was Monday
when someone called us and told us that it was put
up over this past week -end.
Ch. Burton:
O.k. So this is just an informational item.
CDD Koules:
Yeah, it started out as that - its more than that
now.
Ch. Burton:
O.k. So there is no action needed by us. O.k.
Atty Johnson:
There is no action needed at this point.
CDD Koules:
May I ask a question on that - is there any need
to invalidate the action you took on December 1st.
Com. Ingrao:
If its expired why would you have to invalidate
it?
CDD Koules:
Well the building permit expired not the sign
permit - -
CDD Koules:
We're saying that the sign permit was issued in
error.
Com. Schuelke:
The sign permit was issued what?
Ch. Burton:
In error.
CDD Koules:
In error. In error. But it came to your
commission - normally it would not come to your
Transcript of PC Meeting
87- SNP -13
March 15, 1988
Page 3
CDD Koules: Yes.
Atty Johnson: They were notified - I'm not even sure if they
were required to be notified cause the permit and
the code both specifically state they only had 60
days assuming the permit was even valid. And once
that 60 days past, then they could not build so -
Ch. Burton: Well the chair will entertain a motion to rescind
all action where is that -
Atty Johnson: I don't know if we need to hold a public hearing
on this first.
CDD Koules: Well this is a public hearing, this was advertised
Ch. Burton:
commission but Valerie saw fit to bring to your
CDD Koules:
commission and you took an action on that. Now
Atty Johnson:
its a legal question that maybe Moses could speak
to. I would sorta like to if its legally feasible
and to void your action of December 1st.
Atty Johnson:
I think the commission could consider that - again
have
as a practical effect I don't think that will
any effect but if the commission wants to
reconsider its previous action it surely can do
Com. Schuelke:
SO.
Com. Schuelke:
I think it would be good to cover the areas that
CDD Koules:
we can.
Atty Johnson:
We, we - it might not hurt cause we are afraid
has
this may end up in court now that the sign
Com. Schuelke:
gone up - I assume a substantial amount of money
CDD Koules:
has spent to -
Ch. Burton:
But they were notified not to put it up right?
CDD Koules: Yes.
Atty Johnson: They were notified - I'm not even sure if they
were required to be notified cause the permit and
the code both specifically state they only had 60
days assuming the permit was even valid. And once
that 60 days past, then they could not build so -
Ch. Burton: Well the chair will entertain a motion to rescind
all action where is that -
Atty Johnson: I don't know if we need to hold a public hearing
on this first.
CDD Koules: Well this is a public hearing, this was advertised
Ch. Burton:
we advertised it.
CDD Koules:
Advertised as a public hearing.
Atty Johnson:
What I was trying to say is if I don't know if you
have opened this up for a public hearing yet or
not.
Ch. Burton:
No we haven't. We'll open the public hearing at
7:54 P.M., and ask for any proponents
other than what we've heard. Do we have any
proponents.
Com. Schuelke:
The applicants were notified of tonights public
hearing.
CDD Koules:
Yes commissioner, I think that is included in your
packet but if you will give me 'a second I will
look at the information here.
Com. Schuelke:
Oh that is alright I read that.
CDD Koules:
They were notified of this public hearing and
again it was treated like a regular public hearing
and noticed.
Com. Schuelke: Thank you.
Transcript of PC Meeting
87- SNP -13
March 15, 1988
Page 4
Ch. Burton: Do we have any opponents? O.k. If not, we'll
close the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. Now who
wanted to ask a question?
Com. Ingrao: I did.
Ch. Burton: O.k.
Com. Ingrao: This is the second time since I've been on the
commission that the question has come up about us
voting on something, approving something that is
against Title 17. The fact that we approved it -
if it is still against Title 17, I would think
invalidates that approval - of any action on our
part.
Atty Johnson: Normally I would agree with you. I don't think it
is going to hurt anything if the commission wants
to vote on a reconsideration though to make it
clear that the commission recognizes now the
mistake was made and they want to make it
definitely clear that it was a mistake and it was
a void action.
Ch. Burton: O.k. The Chair will entertain that motion.
Com. Remy: O.k. I move - -
Com. Schuelke: I'll make the motion - go ahead, go ahead Ethel.
Com. Remy: I move that we rescind our action taken in
connection with 87- SNP -13 on - what date was that?
Ch. Burton:
December 1st.
Com.
Remy:
December 1st since this was approved in error - we
now found out - -
Ch. Burton:
We have a motion to rescind all action on December
1, 1987 regarding 87- SNP -13.
Com.
Schuelke:
I would request that we clarify just a little
further as to what the error was - just for the
record along with the motion that the commission
feels that - -
Ch. Burton:
First lets - I've got a motion on the floor.
Com.
Schuelke:
Right.
Ch.
Burton:
Do you want to add to it?
Com.
Schuelke:
No I'm not adding to the motion I'm just making a
request that may be this be added to her motion if
she wishes that it-be clarified a little.
Ch.
Burton:
Do you want to clarify it Ethel ?'
Com.
Remy:
Well she can add to it if she wants -
Com.
Remy:
I
Yes. Go ahead.
Com.
Schuelke:
May be staff could may be clarify it a little
the
better in better words for us as to what was
actual error regarding its non - conformance to
Title 17. May be the Planning Director at that
time didn't feel it necessary to check into Title
4
Transcript of PC Meeting
37- SNP -13
March 15, 1988
Page 5
17 and - the only reason you checked further into
Title 17 Mr. Koules was due to the - from what I
read here in the packet you decided to look into
Title 17 a little further - somewhere it stated
that, due to his insistence on his matter of right
- correct
CDD Koules:
Yes.
Com. Schuelke:
And therefore you checked a little closer into
been
Title 17 and found this shouldn't have
allowed in the first place due to the commercial
zone there.
CDD Koules:
Thats correct - and in the report to your
I verbatim the sections of Title
commission quoted
17 of the standards which we believe receipt
(inaudible) violates and so you might wish to - in
your motion you might wish to state the Section
which is 17 -
Com. Schuelke:
In verbatim as you stated in your staff report.
CDD Fcoules:
If that is your wish.
Com. Schuelke:
And I'll second Ethel's motion.
Ch. Burton:
O.k., now we have a motion to rescind all action
on 87- SNP -13 on December 1, 1987 because of - its
in violation of Section 17.60.015 of Title 17.
CDD Koules: A -1, and A -2(a).
Ch. Burton: A -1, and A -2(a). O.k. Does that cover it for you.
Com. Schuelke: Thats beautiful.
Ch. Burton: May we have roll call please.
Secretary: Commissioner Bruner.
Com. Bruner: Yes.
Secretary: Commissioner Schuelke.
Com. Schuelke: Yes.
Secretary: Commissioner Ingrao.
Com. Ingrao: Yes.
Secretary: Commissioner Remy.
Com. Remy: Yes.
Secretary: And Chairperson Burton.
Ch. Burton: Yes.
END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
i
l
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
APRIL 5, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, April 5, 1988, in the City Council Chambers
with Acting Chairperson Remy presiding:
Meeting was called to Order at 7:06 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, and Acting Chairperson Remy.
Chairperson Burton and Commissioner Ingrao were absent.
Attorney Ryskamp and Johnson were present.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of March 15, 1988. Minutes stand as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: CDD Koules read Commissioner Ingrao's
letter of resignation which is to take effect immediately.
Commissioner Schuelke asked about the Poultry Plant
Operation on "B" Street in the 500 Block, wanting to know if
it had been finalized with CDD Koules commenting that he
would check, on this operation and report back to the
commission.
Acting Chairperson Remy noted that a letter be sent to
Commissioner Ingrao thanking him for his service and asked
staff to draft a letter.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules informed the Commission that
the City Council adopted the new Fee Schedule on March 28,
1988 to become effective June 1, 1988, and that the City now
utilizes the Uniform Building Code for 1985.
CON'T PUBLIC HEARING:
4. An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont repealing Chapter 17.90
and Section 17.14.005 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and
adding Chapter 17.90, Sections 17.12.170 through 17.12.200
and Section 17.14.005, dealing with Zoning Amendments,
Change of Zone and General Plans.
Acting Chairperson Remy opened the public hearing at 7:15
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak, there being none, she then closed the
public hearing at 7:16 P.M., turning the matter back to the
commission for discussion.
PC Minutes of
April 5, 1988
Page 2
Sections 17.12.170 through 17.12.200 and Section 17.14.005,
dealing with Zoning Amendments, Change of Zone and General
Plans and amended corrections/changes incorporated rtheYein.
Motion carried unanimously with the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner,
Schuelke and Acting
Chairperson Remy.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
5. Letter from Attorney Held appealing Sign Permit No. 88 -SNP-
1, located at 910 W. Highway 60, which said application was
denied by staff. Applicant, Loren Bisel.
Attorney Ryskamp informed the commission that due to the
fact that Attorney held did not get his 10 day written
notice (although his office was given verbal noticcenaaboute13
days before); 10 days prior to the meeting, y
requested that they be given the full time and asked that
this matter be continued until the meeting of the 19th.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner, seconded by Commissioner
Schuelke to continue this item to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of April 19, 1988- Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Acting
Chairperson Remy.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton.
6. 86- PP -14, Continued extension for one year 6Y
Cougar Mountain Apartments from March 5,
1989.
CDD Koules informed the commission that this item was before
them at the last meeting; however, there was some questions
as to the progress of this project before extending the plot
plan approval for another year. The applicant was informed
of the concerns and is to update the commission of the
progress being made. At the last meeting staff recommended
an extension for one year and this recommendation still
stands.
Mr. Michael Sla le, Certified Pro erties, 4260 Central
Riverside, addressed the commission asking i there were any
ques— t ons by the commission.
Commissioner Schuelke noted that the commission thhadstasked
-- rho rhanaes pertaining
PC Minutes of
April 5, 1988
Page 3
proposed street and one parcel which is twice the size of
the two on the east side with Commissioner Schuelke
commenting "are you saying you have three parcels" with Mr.
Slagle saying there are 3 parcels, the property has been
subdivided." Commissioner Schuelke then stated that she
thought it had been subdivided into two parcels with Mr.
Slagle commenting that it had been split into 3.
Mr. Slagle further noted the following:
1. Phase II would be adjacent to Palm Avenue;
2. Phase I would be the half of side 1 which is adjacent to
the high school;
3. Phase III would be twice the size of Phase I and II
(showing on map);
4. Phase I and II have been approved; however, there is a
question as to the width of the street which affected
the size of the 2nd parcel and 4 units were delineated
from the parcel to the west of the street;
5. All plans have been approved;
6. New plans do show the street - believes it to be Palm
Avenue;
7. Wanted to know if he should send staff a new revised set
of plans.
Commissioner Schuelke asked Mr. Slagle if he remembered
coming before the commission for a waiver of a parcel map
for finance purposes with Mr. Slagle commenting that he did
not recall being at that meeting since there has been a
variety of people working on his project and further
commenting that whatever conditions of approval that have
been granted up to this point, they're requesting an
extension on - not requesting any additions nor deletions.
Commissioner Schuelke commented that what the commission had
requested was that you (Mr. Slagle) submit an improvement
plan on how you intended to improve Palm Avenue.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the applicant had submitted the
appropriate dedication for Palm Avenue and received a
Certificate of Compliance. There is a Palm Avenue Alignment
Plan.
Commissioner Schuelke commented that since there is so much
development in this area and Palm Avenue is now being re-
aligned to be extended through, there should be some
procedure - planning as to what Palm Avenue is suppose to
look like when all of these developments come through -
should be uniform with landscaping, sidewalks and fencing -
all consistent from 14th Street on to Cougar Way.
CDD Koules suggested that
applicant to have his engineer
their concerns and then it be
the commission direct the
prepare something to satisfy
reviewed by the City Engineer.
/ PC Minutes of
April 5, 1988
Page 4
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, to continue the request
for the extension to the next Regular Planning commission
Meeting of April 19, 1988, subject to staff presenting to
the commission the outcome of the meeting between the two
engineers, Mr. Slagle and CDD Koules. Also have the City
Engineer design what he envisions Palm Avenue to
look like from 14th Street to Cougar Avenue; seconded by
Commissioner Bruner. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brune Schuelke and Acting
Chairperson aebov&k
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton.
Attorney Ryskamp stated that he recalls very well
when the realignment came up and the adoption of the
precise alignment. There are no requirements set forth
relative to landscaping, height of walls or anything like
that.
CDD Koules noted that if we look at the requirements
comprehensively more time is needed.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that something similar to what was
adopted for Beaumont Avenue would be appropriate.
Commissioner Schuelke again asked that staff look into the
wood fence that is being built on the project that is being
constructed and bring the information back to the next
meeting.
7. 88- MPP -2, Greyhound Bus. Owner's objection to striping
requirements. Applicant, James Jeffrey.
CDD Koules commented that at the last meeting there was an
agreement for a red strip to be painted for 100 feet from
the new location of the bus terminal to Beaumont Avenue
which was a proposal by the applicant Mr. Morgan.
Subsequent, to that hearing, the property owner Jim Jeffrey
indicated that they reconsidered their willingness to do
that and we have a letter from Mr. Jeffrey to that effect.
In the meantime, Police Chief Funston has been talking to
some of the bus drivers and has come up with a solution to
the bus terminal depot.
Police Chief Funston, addressed the commission stating
that he had prepared a proposal in the form of a speed memo
recommending the following for the bus terminal:
1. Restrict bus loading to east /west alley north of 400
E. 6th Street;
7. Remnve all commuter bus parking 400 - 500 E. 6th Street
V
PC Minutes of
April 5, 1988
Page 5
C. Creates a traffic flow for traffic on 6th Street;
d. Alley is sufficient width - can park two or three
buses back to back as well as the traffic flow in
the alley;
e. 3 bus drivers have indicated that they would not
have difficulty parking in the alley way;
f. Not a difficult time making the turns into the
alley way or getting out even considering the large
truck traffic in the alley way;
g. Alleviates their problem of crossing 4 lanes of
traffic;
h. Doesn't feel it is necessary to make the alley one
way;
i. Other alternative is to re- locate the bus terminal.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the commission should
respond to the objection of the striping requirements by
recommending that the striping requirements be included by
the City Council in conformance with the plan imposed by the
Chief of Police, with Commissioner Schuelke stating "so
moved."
William W. Blair, 460 E. 6th St., addressed the commission
commenting that he was t e owner of the appliance store and
that his trucks are there about 508 of the day either
unloading or loading - feels there might be a problem.
Irene Testerman, 655 Ma nolia Avenue, Beaumont, addressed
the commission commenting that she fe t this was a marvelous
suggestion; however a temporary solution since this is the
main intersection of Beaumont and a bus company has no
business being on a main intersection where people first see
Beaumont; people sleeping in Grey's Ice Cream Building which
is in the process of being boarded up. Lots of other
problems other than traffic hazard.
Dick Harpster, addressed the commission commenting that he
owns the Auto Repair Shop and would like to see the bus
depot stay open until 6:30 p.m., since he has trouble with
people urinating on the wall and outside the garage.
Acting Chairperson Remy commented about the motion with
Commissioner Schuelke stating her motion still stands.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the conditions of the last
meeting have not been affected at all and that the motion is
to modify the striping conditions to conform with the Chief
of Police's recommendation and to allow and recommend that
those stripings be adopted by the City Council; seconded by
Commissioner Bruner. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioner Bruner, Schuelke and Acting
Chairperson Remy.
NOES: None.
%y
PC Minutes of
April 5, 1988
Page 6
Attorney Ryskamp suggested that he be directed to give a
revised version of the memo dated December 1985, and you
will have a clear cut written statement of how it is being
interpreted and enforced.
It was the consensus of the
continued to the next Regular
April 19, 1988.
commission that this item be
Planning Commission Meeting of
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:58 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
piann MZ on-14retary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
APRIL 19, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
I:eeting on Tuesday, April 19, 1988, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
f±eeting was called to Order at 7:00 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Remy and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner
Schuelke arrived shortly thereafter.
Attorney Ryskamp and Johnson were present.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission
Meeting of April 5, 1988, were approved as submitted with
the following correction:
Page 4 - First Roll Call vote, should read "Acting
Chairperson Remy" not "Acting Chairperson Schuelke."
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules informed the commission that
a letter had been prepared for their signatures recognizing
Commissioner Ingrao's service to the commission. Also, May
13, 1988, is the last day for the filing of any interested
citizen that might want to serve on the commission and May
23, 1988 would be the selection date.
:ic further informed the commission that he had field checked
the Poultry Operation (formerly Beaumont Operation) located
at 550 "B" Street and noticed there were 2 truck loads of
live chickens on the property. He reported this to the
Police Department and they informed him that in the past
they had had problems with this site being used for the
washing of trucks. In checking with the Beaumont - Cherry
Valley Water Dist., Mr. Butcher commented that as of last
November, the operation had been using 6000 gallons of water
daily so there is activity on the site; however, when in
full operation a couple of years ago, they used 300,000
gallons of water per day. CDD Koules commented that he
would check further and report back to the commission at the
next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 88 -GP -2, 88 -RZ -2 and 88 -ND -3, request to change the General
PC Minutes of
;,pril 19, 1988
Page 2
nromote the commercial development in a highly visable
area from the freeway.
The commission asked Mr. Koules if it would be feasible
while re- zoning these parcels, if the other portion of this
area be re -zoned with CDD Koules commenting that it would
have to be noticed in the paper.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:15
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Frank Montesinos, 103 1/2 Ave., Del Mar, San Clemente, Ca.,
addressed the commission commenting t at he agrees with the
staff report and would be happy to answer any questions.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:16 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, recommending approval by
City Council of 88 -GP -2, 88 -RZ -2, also the Commission finds
that adoption of Negative Declaration 88 -ND -3 will not have
a significant effect on the environment and recommends
approval by the City Council; second by Commissioner Bruner.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
APSE ":T: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
5. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Beaumont
repealing Chapter 17.14 of the Beaumont Municipal Code and
adding Chapter 17.14, dealing with General and Specific
Plans. Applicant, City of Beaumont.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that since the material relating to
this matter was delivered to the commissioners at the
meeting, it might be advisable to continue this over to the
next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 1988.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:24
P.m., 'continuing this public hearing to the next Regular
Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 1988.
6. 87- Ti•1 -8, Am. #2 (Tr. 23161) & 88 -ND -2, for a revised
proposed project consisting of 183 lots for single family
homes, located north of 14th Street and west of Cherry
Avenue. Applicant, WDS Development, Inc.
CDD Y,oules presented the staff report commenting that the
___,<___' ti�A t,;s Dian for 183 single family
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 3
6) Precise Alignment;
7) cul -de -sac.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:06
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. Gerald Ronnebeck, 214 S. Euclid, Suite 108 Ontario,
addressed the commission commenting: no landscaping between
the curb and the wall in order to cut down on the
maintenance and landscaping cost; 6' sidewalk; curb
within the 6' sidewalk; from curb face to the right of way
will be 5'; if you require more landscaping for Palm Avenue,
then by all reason you should allow frontage onto Palm
Avenue; if it is a thoroughfare you wouldn't want people
backing out of their driveways into a 45 or 50 mile an hour
street; can cut down the size of the sidewalk, and put in
landscaping next to the walls.
Commissioner Schuelke then asked if there was a standard
within the ordinance for the required sidewalks with CDD
Icoules commenting that he thought the practice for the width
of a sidewalk is 6' as per City Engineer.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the City Council did adopt
the Alignment Plan and most of City Council's discussion was
dealing with traffic flow. They (Council) eliminated
Orange, Michigan Avenues and turned Palm Avenue into the,,
major thoroughfare to carry traffic flow north through this
area.
Commissioner Schuelke commented that she had taken it for
granted that Palm Avenue was going to be continued as a
120'width street not 921width with Attorney Ryskamp
commenting that Mr. Dotson drafted and planned the plan and
the emphasis was on traffic flow; however, aesthetics needs
to be looked at as well.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 8:06
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents wishing to speak from
the audience.
Jose h Mulle , Vice President, WDS Develo ment, 5206 Benito,
cAontclair, Ca. addresse the commission commenting that:
instead o a straight wall (grant of an easement) can be
indented in a decorative way and the area that backs up to
Palm Avenue can be planted and this would give the
commission the landscaping that is required and also break
the channel effect; can beautify the street and still allow
Palm Avenue to remain the same size that it is; fence would
not come all the way out to the sidewalk making the
maintenance easier; would like this evening to achieve full
approval subject to conditions.
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 4
the cul -de -sac, noting that the City Engineer felt it
was in the City's best interest just to let it lie for
now and later on address this issue. CDD Koules commented
that he would check with the property owner of the cul -de-
sac to see if they wanted to do their improvements when this
comes back to the commission for landscaping approval.
CDD Koules commented that a condition should be added
to the effect that applicant shall prepare a landscape plan
to include "saw tooth" proposal along Palm Avenue for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and lighting plan
along Palm Avenue and along 14th Street as well.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner recommending approval by
City Council as submitted and that developer submit a
landscape plan for Palm Avenue, Fourteenth Street, and the
cul -de -sac as well as a lighting plan, also Planning
Commission finds that adoption of Negative Declaration 88-
ND-3 will not have a significant effect on the environment
and recommends approval by the City Council; seconded by
Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
SCHEDULED MATTER:
7. Letter from Attorney Held appealing Sign Permit No. 88 -SNP-
1, located at 910 W. Highway 60, which said application was
denied by staff. Matter continued from April 5, 1988 to
April 19, 1988. Applicant Kunz & Co.
CDD Koules commented that there was no staff report, it is
an appeal for a decision to deny an outdoor advertising
billboard and Attorney Ryskamp has responded to the
commission with response to the attorney's letter.
Attorney Johnson commented that he assumed all the
commission had read his memorandum and asked if there were
any questions.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the applicant would like an
opportunity to speak. Our recommendation was to sustain the
decision of the Community Development Director.
Tom Flanagan, representing Kunz & Co., 1831 Commercenter E.,
San Bernardino, addressed the commission stating his
objections and reasons why he should be allowed to construct
a billboard sign at 910 W. highway 60. He also wanted it
read into the record that the application meets the
PC minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 5
states that it has to be authorized in the zone and our C -G
zone does not authorize it.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner to deny the appeal for Sign
Permit No. 88- SNP -1, located at 910 W. Highway 60; seconded
by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
8. 86- PP -14, continued hearing for one year extension of plot
plan, requested by Cougar Mountain Apartments from March 5,
1988 to March 6, 1989. Applicant, Michael M. Slagle.
CDD Koules reported that this was heard at the last meeting
of April 5, 1988. His first contact by Mr. Slagle was on
April 12th when called about a different matter and the
following day a Mr. Ed Adkison called about 5:15 P.M., and
was referred to the City Engineer. He further commented
that he (Koules) had spoken to Jim Dotson and there seemed
to be some questions. The grading plans have been signed
off by the City Engineer and the right of way has been
acquired but there has been no landscape plans. He further
noted that he has no recommendation and his previous
recommendation is withdrawn.
Mr. Michael Slagle, addressed the commission commenting that
Fe brought wit him this evening Mr. Ed Adkison who is
their engineer and he will be able to answer any questions
that the commission might have regarding this project.
Ed Adkison, 6830 Airport Dr., Riverside, addressed the
commission representing th applicant stating that he talked
to Jim Dotson and Mr. Dotson felt the commission was
concerned about the aesthetics of the project in regards to
the Precise Alignment of Palm Avenue; has complied with the
Precise Alignment; plot plan has been approved; 25' building
setback; not proposing to put a block wall on the rear of
the 6'walkway which is going to be landscaped; applicant is
willing to go ahead and comply with the same conditions as
conditioned with the previous tract to the south; will bring
in landscape plans and let the commission condition them;
would be willing to grant an easement for landscaping if
needed; willing to have a condition that the landscaping
plan would be reviewed by the commission prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Chairperson Burton explained that their main concern before
granting the extension is to see an update on the project
because at the, time of approval, Palm Avenue was not a
PC Minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 6
because the precise alignment was still being determined.
When Council comes up with the precise alignment, then we
would proceed and start from the east right of way line and
take whatever distance is needed and then design the second
phase around the width of Palm Avenue. When the Precise
Alignment was adopted by Council, we completed the street
improvement plans in accordance with the Precise Alignment -
those plans are signed off by the City Engineer and are
ready for construction.
Commissioner Schuelke' noted that they are asking for an
extension of the very first one (Phase I). At that time we
requested that prior to a permit being issued, the amended
plot plan for Phase 1 be brought back to the commission
showing Palm Avenue coming through.
Michael Slagle, noted it was his understanding that the plot
plan is approved and it has also been extended. He
commented that they requested an extension of the plot plan
last year when it expired at a different date from the date
of the working drawings - have a plot plan and a working
drawing. The plot plan is alive, the engineering for the
street improvement is alive, what has expired is the
architectural drawings for the buildings themselves - this
is the only portion of the project that needs an extension.
Commission noted that
says with CDD Koules
should be clarified.
that was not what the staff report
concuring. Mr. Slagle felt this
Michael Slagle further commented that they were not here to
extend the plot plan, it is alive - we're not asking for a
building permit extension, we're asking for an archectitural
extension.
CDD Koules noted that the plot plan that he has was approved
by the Planning Commission Meeting of October 7, 1986 and
one of the conditions says this project shall commence
development within 12 months from approval of planning
commission. When this came to CDD Koules, it came as an
extension of the plot plan approval of 86 -PP -14 which is
why it is before the commission.
Michael Slagle_ asked if he requested an extension of the
plans or did he ask for an extension of the plot plan with
Attorney Ryskamp commenting an extension of the approved
plans.
i4ichael Slagle commenting the approved plans - not the plot
plan and the approved plans which he is referring is the
architectural plans for the project. Further, 86 -PP -14 is
alive according to a letter he has from the City Council -
it has been extended for one year.
PC [minutes of
April 19, 1988
Page 7
CDD Koules then asked if we are going back and saying that
you wanted an extension of the building permit with Mr.
Slagle stating "yes" they wanted an extension of the
approval of the building plans which are ordinarily granted
when the plot plan is extended. (Slagle) we do not have a
building permit, we need an extension of the architectural
plans.
CDD Koules commented that he didn't feel it was necessary
unless it is a condition of the plot plan approval. CDD
Koules has the conditions of approval dated October 7, 1986
and that was continued for another year. Mr. Koules wanted
to know if there were any conditions within the conditions
of approval that required Mr. Slagle to come in and get an
extension of the development plans for the architectural
drawings.
Michael Slagle commented that he could not answer that
question, that he relies on what his professional people
advise him to do with Mr. Adkison commenting that he didn't
have any correspondence, but he did note that the
improvement plans are signed May of 87.
CDD Koules then noted that he thought the improvement plans
were still good as long as the plot plan is still active
with Attorney Rsykamp commenting that he didn't think there
was any reason for Mr. Slagle and Mr. Adkison to be here as
long as their plot plan is alive. However, (Ryskamp still
speaking) that what he is hearing from the commission is
that prior to the expiration of the extension which was
granted in September and runs through October 6, 1988,
that there should be plans submitted which show the proper
width of Palm Avenue.
Chairperson Burton commented that she voted yes on this
project because she was told that when the alignment was
decided, then a revised plot plan would be brought back.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that if this is the requirement that
we are looking at, then Mr. Koules needs to advise the
applicants that before they proceed, they are to submit a
revised plot plan for both phases and this would be the
City's position and informing Mr. Slagle and Mr. Adkison
that they had .requested something they didn't need. Mr.
Adkison then commented "so this is a matter of record now ".
9. Legal interpretation /clarification of Section 17.60.115 (e)
of Title 17 (Vehicular Signs) requested by Commissioner
Remy.
Attorney Ryskamp requested that this item be continued to
the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 3, 1988
in order to give him an opportunity to write a legal
interpretation.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
MAY 3, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 1988, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
Dlecting was called to Order at 7:07 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Remy and Chairperson Burton. Conunissioner
Cichuelke arrived shortly thereafter.
Attorney Ryskamp was present.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April
19, 1988, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules informed the Commission that
on this date (5/3/88), Paul Turner, the Building Inspector
for the Citv of Beaumont, went to the Poultry Plant and saw
no evidence of any operation taking place.
4. An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont repealing Chapter 17.14
of the Beaumont Municipal Code and adding Chapter 17.14,
dealing with General and Specific Plans. Applicant, City of
Beaumont.
After discussion, it was decided that this matter be
continued to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June
7, 1988, in order to give CDD Koules an opportunity to
review and give the commission feedback as to his thoughts
and wording for Chapter 17.14 Specific Plans.
F. Legal interpretation /clarification of Section 17.60.115 (e)
of Title 17 (vehicle Signs) requested by Commissioner Remy.
Attorney Ryskamp hand delivered a written legal
interpretation in the form of a memo dated 4/27/88 to the
commission (attached), pursuant to Commissioner Remy's
concern of citations being given for "for sale" signs in
vehicles while parked in a quasi- public parking lots. She
wanted to know what constitutes a non - moving sign display
since customers with a "for sale" sign in the window of
their vehicle were bring cited.
After discussion, it was recommended by Attorney Ryskamp
A; . A ..,i i-h i-ha ri tv Manaaer
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: April 27, 1988
RE: Signs
The question of signs in the City of Beaumont has again
reared its ugly head. Again the question that has arisen deals
with Beaumont Municipal Code Section 17.60.115e. This provision
in the Off -Site Directional and Informational Signs Section reads
as follows:
"vehicular signs restricted. It shall be
unlawful for any person to maintain any
vehicle on a street or on private or public
property as a non - moving sign display.
Commercial and business vehicles including
buses, taxis, trucks, and the like moving
through City streets shall be exempted
from this provision."
As we look at this Section the key issue is the concept of
maintenance of a vehicle as a non - moving sign display. Any
situation involving a sign on a vehicle or on a trailer has to be
evaluated in terms of the purpose for the vehicle being parked
where it is. If its purpose for being parked is as a sign
display, then it would be in violation of this Ordinance. If the
purpose of the vehicle being parked is to allow the owner to
conduct business at a reasonable hour and for a reasonable amount
of time, then the vehicle bearing the sign would not be in
violation of the law. In utilizing this purpose test the
officers must be prudent in its application, including trying to
ascertain the owner or driver of the vehicle and determining the
purpose for having the vehicle in the area. If no owner or
driver can be located after a reasonable time, a citation should
be issued.
The police do have a duty to enforce Title 17 of the
Municipal Code as set forth in Section 17.100.005. Further, the
officers have two means of enforcement. First, and slower, they
have the right to declare the item a public nuisance (see
17.100.015) and contact our office to initiate removal or
abatement procedures. It is clear that the penalty for violation
of the Ordinance (a misdemeanor) is punishable by a fine not in
excess of $500.00 and /or up to six months in the County Jail.
The second legal procedure open to the officers in this situation
would be the exercise of the power to arrest for creation of a
-1-
public nuisance under Penal Code Section 370, 371, 372, and 373a.
Considering the rather temporary nature of vehicular violations
in terms of duration, it would seem that this public nuisance
approach would be the better procedure. As with other Sign
Ordinance violations, we recommend the police officer or other
responsible City officer issue a citation both for violation of
the Penal Code for public nuisance and for violation of Municipal
Code Section 17.60.115.
when one considers the action to be taken for enforcement of
this statute when there is a violation, one must also consider
whether the vehicle is displayed on private property, on
quasi - public property such as shopping center parking lots where
there may be issues of traffic control or congestion, and lastly
on public property or the public right -of -way. Public streets
are the easiest as a direct citation is always appropriate if a
violation has occurred. In dealing with private property and
quasi- public property we would feel it necessary to exercise more
caution. The concern here is not only the language of the
Ordinance but the potential for infringement of the
constitutional right to the use of property and freedom of
speech. On quasi - public property, that is, private property that
is open to the public and used generally by the public and in
particular for vehicular traffic, if it is ascertained that the
sign is in such a position that it could interfere with traffic
flow or otherwise endanger residents of the City, then the
procedure outline above should be followed. If that
determination is not made by the officer, then the officer should
determine if the owner of the property has given specific
permission for the presence of the sign. If permission has been
granted then the sign should be treated as would any other sign
on private property, and it should be evaluated in terms of the
violation of other provisions in Title 171 perhaps by referral to
the Community Development Department. It is very important that
care be taken in this area as we may have constitutional problems
in enforcing Title 17, especially as it applies to political
signs. Therefore, in dealing with signs on private property
where there is no clear danger to the public or interference with
the basic police powers of this City, it is important no hasty
action be taken.
The previous interpretations and directions given by this
office concerning the use of the public right -of -way and
encroachment thereon still apply. For vehicles parking for
extended periods on the public right -of -way we have recommended
enforcement of Municipal Code Section 12.12.040, where it is
necessary that an individual encroaching on the City's
right -of -way have a permit. The City official can then determine
under the standard criteria for encroachments, without review of
the content of the encroachment (this is constitutionally
important) if a sign permit should be given for encroachment on
the public right -of -way. If the individual does not obtain a
permit or is unable to do so and the encroaching sign remains,
having been given a reasonable time (in this case probably at
least three days in which City offices are open) to correct the
-2-
situation, a citation should be issued and enforcement be carried
out as a violation of the Municipal Code.
If there are any further questions, as I fully expect there
will be, please contact the undersigned.
M-Z
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JUNE 21, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
:;eeting on Tuesday, June 21, 1988, in the City Council Chambers
with chairperson Burton presiding:
by ar Jim
VS. ainaandewelcomed by fellow Commissioner sworn in as
fellow commissiionersand planningystaff.
Keoting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M.
On poll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson
Dorton.
Attorney Ryskamp and Johnson were present.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. ninutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May
3, 1988, were approved as submitted.
2. oral Communication: None.
3 Director's Report: CDD Koules explained the Specific
Planning Area Zone which should be included in the Ordinance
dealing with General and Specific Plans. He commented that
at the present time, there is nothing in the Ordinance that
would implement the Specific Plan; thus, the reason for
Chapter 17.36 being brought before the Commission for
discussion purposes.
COW 1' PUBLIC HEARING:
q, An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont repealing Chapter 17.14
of the Beaumont Municpal Code and adding � Chapter C y
17 14,
dealing with General and Specific Plans. Apt Of
Beaumont.
Attorney Ryskamp explained the changes made pertaining to
this Ordinance, commenting that it now provides better
flexibility and compliance for the areas that are currently
designated with the PUD designation.
chairperson Burton then asked if anyone wanted to speak
pertaining to this matter and there being none, she then
closed the public hearing at 7:08 P.M., turning the matter
hacl to the commission for discussion.
on notion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner.
-- ..<.-•, r.,.,nr•i 1 of the
Minutes of PC Meeting
,7une 21, 1988
Page 2
i)UisLIC 11EARING:
5, 87- PI °1 -9, (Tr. 23144), to divide property
yainto
4illiamsparcels,
located at 650 E. 1st Street. Applicant,
CDD Koules presented the staff report commenting that the
applicant had requested a parcel map waiver; however, a
waiver should have a basis for it, (e.g., if there are
conditions that are unreasonable or impossible to comply
with). The City Engineer felt there should be a dedication
of 4' of additional right -of -way along First Street and this
was the reason for staff's recommendation this be done
through a final parcel map rather than a separate
instrument. Further, a waiver of a parcel map would cause
more work moth on the City Engineer and on the City's part.
';r. "r:oules further noted he would like to make a practice of
not granting waivers of maps unless there are some very good
reasons.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:20
p.m., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to sneak.
r'r. Jack Williams, 650 E. 1st., and 652 E. 1st., Beaumont,
anc ?ressed the commission stating he is trying to divide an
acre into 2 lots and each lot has its own individual
utilities.
mir. Dave Sumner, Sanborn & Webb Engineering, 930 Beaumont
Avenue., Beaumont, addressed the commission explaining that
one of the complications for this parcel map was the County
vacated the property in 1893 and in so doing vacated all
streets and all property lines which was not converted to
acreage wiping out all division of land (it was not
recorded until 1940). The City Engineer's position is that
since everything was vacated you can't have a little hit of
vacation of street and not a vacation of property. In this
case however, the client obtained 4 of the lots through a
legal description prior to the Subdivision Map Act of
1972 and since it was done prior to the Map Act the
recording of a parcel map was not required. Mr. Sumner felt
that a final map is not necessary since there are recorded
monuments showing the boundary of the property and commented
that the only problem is the 4' dedication that can
be handled with a legal description much cheaper and quicker
than a final parcel map.
Chairperson Burton asked if there had been a boundary survey
clone on this property with Mr. Sumner. stating "yes" they had
done 3 of the points and had surveyed it but did not
monument the division. Also, Mr. Sumner commented that
originally in 1893 it was 4 lots and merged into 1 through a
legal survey.
speak, Chairperson Burton
Minutes of PC meeting
June 21, 1988
Page 3
;,ayles had monumented the corners as indicated in the map
and does agree with them. Commissioner Pries commented that
she understood that the 4 monuments weren't there, with Mr..
Gunner statinq they had found 3.
Thc_o. being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
Chen closed the public hearing at 7:29 P.M., turning the
:;lat-ter back to the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner, seconded by Commissioner
Fries, to recommend approval by City Council of 87 -PM -9 (Tr.
23144) and Negative Declaration 88 -ND -4, subject to the
Conditions of Approval and deny the request for a waiver of
the Parcel Map. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTT,Ii,: "lone.
ABSENT: None.
Ciii:DUL-D :dATTi.RS:
6. 87 -TM -1, (Tr. 22332), a request for a one (1) year extension
for a 48 lot subdivision, located on the south side of
Cherry Avenue between 10th and 11th Streets. Applicant,
Neal Baker.
CDD KouleS commented that Mr. Baker had been in contact with
Mr. Dotson to work out map requirements and that the
Subdivision ,Sap Act does allow for an extension. The 48 lot
subdivision was heard in June 1986 for the first time and
runs for 2 years.
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Schuelke, the Planning Commission recommended approval by
Cite Council for a one (1) year extension from this date for
86- T61-1, Tract No. 22332. Motion carried with the following
roll call vote:
AYliS: Commnissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Pries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
:]OES: None.
ABS'P1I.1 : None .
ABSEI'T: None.
7. 87- CUP -2, a request for a one (1) year extension for a 97 RV
Par;:, located at First and Pennsylvania Streets. Applicant,
TIZS Enterorises.
CDD Joules presented the staff report noting that on August
18, 1987, the commission recommended approval of this 97 RV
Park based upon the report by Planning Director, Valerie
:inutes of PC Wo Ling
,7unp 21, U n8
page L
is c ussion, Commissioner Schuelke made a motion to
,:env the request for extension as
per. staff's findings
pertaining to 87 -CUP-2 for a 97 RV Park, seconded by
Commissioner_ Remy.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the applicant should have an
opportunity to speak with Commissioner Schuelke withdrawing
her motion in order for the applicant to address the
commission.
',r. Todd Schlesinger, 14405 California St., Beaumont,
addressed the commission commenting that: due to the
complication of this project starting July 7th when it was
originally approved, it took to October 28, 1987 to actually
get City Council's approval; intent of the zoning is
designee', to take advantage of rural environment as well as
the outdoor recreational potential of the community;
wouldn't have gone ahead if he hadn't of had staff's
approval; project is complex and wants the time to do a good
job; does have his financing now which was part of the hold
up.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Remy that based on staff's findings and considering the
applicant's position one year later, a six (6) month
extension be granted from this date for 87- CUP -2.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that there should be a finding
mace that the original interpretation as set forth by the
Planning Director in the original approval is the
interpretation you are using as to whether this project
conforms to the zoning ordinance.
It was noted by the commission that they were in agreement
with staff's findings that it is not in compliance with the
zone; however, the feeling was that it was unfair to the
a "!!cant not to grant an extension.
Todd Schlesinger, addessed the commission commenting that he
would appreciate a six month extension.
CDD Koules noted that there had been no communication
between the applicant and the City of Beaumont.
Todd Schlesinger, again addressed the commission stating he
was not aware that he was not conforming with the plans;
thought the approval of his project was 12 months from the
City Council approval which was October 1987.
Commissioner Schuelke restated her motion to recommend
approval of a sir, (6) month extension which begins as of
this evening and found that due to the uniqueness of this
project and circumstances beyond the applicant's control,
the commission for this six month period, will use the
nr;n;nal aooroval for the
mnyitcs of PC Kaoting
nun
'acc
ZS: commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, and Remy.
HUES: Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
AD3P;iJT: Nonc.
27- P? -12, a change in Conditions of Approval for 144
awartment units, located at the N/E Corner of Beaumont Avenue
and Cougar Way. Applicant, John Sims, American Housing Corp.
CDD Zoules explained that this was an informational item and
was brought before the commission because of a change in
conditions of approval which is different: from the
conditions in the original approval.
Commissioner Remy noted that Mr. Sims was suppose to advise
the commission of the total number of apartments that was
going to be built pursuant to net acreage - which wasn't
core..
Attorney Rys }camp commented that in one of the conditions on
Pane 7, it specifically indicates 9.9 acreas, as set forth in
the letter of May 9, 1988 from the City Engineer. I'ur.ther,
Page 7 of the new conditions in the letter of May 9, 1988,
(Condition 07.OG) indicated that 9.9 acres within the
?roject site is the amount that has been used in the charge
to the sewer district.
It was the feeling of the commission that this project had
not been approved and if the map was changed it was supposed
to cone 'back before the commission.
Secretary noted from the Minutes of October 6, 1987 that
> is project was approved and read information from the
minutes verifying approval.
John Sims, American Housing Corp., addressed the
commission commenting: 41e were instructed to come back with
Q report based on the net density - the 144 units results
in the deduction in the property that is required with the
dedication for the frontage road and Beaumont Avenue; stay
sufficiently away from the Deodora trees as not to injure
the root system; direction from the Planning Commission from
the meeting of October, 1987, that the City Engineer had the
authority to approve and design the access road in
accordance with the standards that was developed for width
with the condition that they stay away from the Deodora
trees - the City Engineer then said he didn't want the
responsibility and wants it back before the commission;
feels they have complied; no design standards for Beaumont
:',venue; was goin g to wait until there was an Assessment
District in order to let developers know what to do; curb
and gutter is at least 15' from the center of each of the
trans; sidowalks are 6' including curb and gutter.
Nmutes of PC hooting
June 21, 1988
Page 6
Attorney Ryskamp noted that
adopted for that road for
road is in the County.
there could be no specific plan
both sides because half of the
John Sins, sneaking and stating that: proposes as a
comprise, to let them go ahead in getting a building
permit; will help design Beaumont Avenue; simple thing to
form an Assessment District or whatever for the ultimate
approval of Beaumont Avenue; recommends that the Planning
Commission request the presence of the City Engineer when
issues like this one is presented; stipulation that they
will wort: with and in good faith and bear financial
responsibility to the extent of a reasonable plan for their
side of Beaumont Avenue; wouldn't want to go back and remove
the Deodora trees and put in a 50' island with all sorts of
Manning undergrounding; will commit to work with the City
in whatever reasonable way to eventually work through this
vroblcm.
it was the consensus of the commission that they wanted to
visually see what Beaumont Avenue is going to look like on a
designed plan and that an Assessment District be formed for
this project as well as all the other projects.
Attorney 2yskamp commented that we now have the need to pool
money /resources and create the development plan for Beaumont
Avenue. - the engineering plans need to be drawn and
determinations made.
John Sims again stating: be reasonable; can't agree to
anything that is open- ended.
The Commission noted that this condition would run with this
property.
Join Sims, stating: doesn't want to do any hardcore design
until they have an approved plan; can prepare an agreement
that obligates American Housing Corporation to participate
to work with whomever and City staff; will build at some
point and time - doesn't know when that will be because he
doesn't know when it will be approved or if an Assessment
District will be formed; cannot have as a condition on the
building permits; ready to pull building permits by the end
of the month; ready to close their loan; if they sell, the
agreement would be assigned to the buyer; if a deed
restriction is placed on him, he couldn't finance the
project.
Attorney P.yskamp commented that a deed restriction is not
the answer. If the City wants to develop this property then
take action and further, conditions of approval run with the
conditional use permit. When the building permit is issued
there is a condition on the permit that there will be no
certificate of completion and occupancy unless the amounts
:linut.cs of PC Meeting
,tune 21, 19SO
Page 7
in mind when he said no improvements because there are no
standards and it is up to the community to develop those
standards. I'm willing to propose and develop some proposal
to consider to develop your standards by and to participate
i;; ;;em. I thin,]: what we're doing is trying to (inaudible)
the difference be designs and improvements in this area
and building the street. - and that is what I tried to say
f
irst is that I don't know what to design a street to, until
wn give you mavbe a concept plan - maybe we give you as I
said a water plan, a tree Plan and maybe we have a public
Nearing on what the community .wants that street to be
whether its rural in design or whether it stays like
iilshire
Blvd. or what. So what I'm trying to say is that
its hest - I don't want to get away with anything but try to
tie a specific obligation of ours into a design which
doesn't exist seems to be the cart before the horse. Tie in
an obligation for us to participate in a design, and tie to
us an obligation to participate in an assessment district or
other means of financing that the City develops for our
portion - that I can understand, but again - to tie it to a
building permit or occupancy permit would really be a
political problem as to who approves that and who designs
%c hat and who is to Pay - what I think we're just building a
monster to try (inaudible).
Cn :.iissioner Schu.1ke then asked Mr.. Sims could he
accom-)lish what he says he is willing to do.
,Olin Sims, verbatim testimony, If the City will tell us
toForro w _ what design firm they wish to use, who is going to
participate it, how many property owners, what the general
requirements and goals and objectives of the City are which
are probably - I won't speak for Mr. Koules, but it should
be a planning thing and what h- thinks that those original
initial concepts are, they can't be a whole lot, I can't see
o c than a few thousand dollars for a water study and
calculation, another few thousand for a tree study as to how
much water these particular trees need from somebody that
1.no,:rs about it, what the root system is to send somebody out
tN r^ to dig it, how far you really want the paving to come
over, :chat would happen if you really did cut off all water,
do you 'rant to then let it - put in a sprinkler system and
if so do you have an assessment district to set that up for
- like a lighting district, is it going to be a community
;ldo thing for maybe 14th St. all the way to whereever you
giant it to go. If we knew those things then I could give
you an answer, but again cities have done this time after
`i.m^ after time and where I'm standing it looks like the
co:m,lission is saying we want you to resolve an irresolvable
pro'-) 1em for us because no one really knows at this point,
;ntt I sure think that with the people that are doing your
gneral fans and vour other olanning things we can get
e
somebody to draw it, we can get a proposal, we'll be willing
to corua.it for our portion on - - if the whole study is
,.,,,, . -A ., 1 ii nrh of that or 1/2 of that or whatever
;mutes of PC ^.eeting
June 21, 1988
Page S
literally could be one day before and I've got no control
over it and I don't know if the (inaudible) contract can't
close a construction loan, I would suggest - - why can't you
(lo it like ( inaudible) participation agreement, why can't
we just d.o it like a contract because then that makes it a
personal obligation of me not the lender. And the lender is
Holt going to loan money on the project if he can't get an
occupancy. I will agree to participate, I will agree to
make this property subject to the assessment district
(inaudible). You asked me a question to begin with when we
first started this what I would do if I were sitting in your
position about designing a road. My response (inaudible) is
that I would want the most professionally designed access
roar' that will serve the needs of the community. Now in my
minds eve, the same answer is for Beaumont Avenue. You
can't just do half the road or a quarter of a road on our
share, you've got to bite the bullet and you've got to
design the whole bloody thing and thats got to be approved
by Council and then its (inaudible) with people that are
going to have to pay for it but then - - and you can make a
condition - - I would presume the Commission, on those
people that are in the position that I am in, that hey,
you're gonna agree to participate in this assessment
district - and you're not going to get development, I
absolutely irrevocably guarantee you on the east side of
Beaumont Avenue unless its brought into the City, you're not
going to get sewer and water. services.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner to approve 87 -PP-
12, American dousing Corp. revising 1.01 as per City
Engineer's letter dated May 9, 1988.
Attorney P,vskamp suggested that if the City has not
completed development of Beaumont Avenue Engineering Plans
when the occupancy permit is required, that the City shall
provide a contract in lieu thereof obligating American
Housing Inc., and John Sims.
John Sims, verbatim testimony. Now hold it folks, well in
all honesty folks, Mr. Sims has no direct ownership interest
in this project at all (inaudible). If you want to get into
the technicalities, by a partnership of which there is a
corporate general partner, there is a - I'm sorry, there is
a limited partner which is a corporate general partner there
and American [lousing is involved and - -
Commissioner Schuelke then asked if there would be any
personal guarantee from any of the officers of any of these
partnerships or corporations with Mr. Sims answering "only
to the construction loan ".
John Sims, verbatim testimony. What I have to tell you is
there is a million and a half dollars worth of equity
(inaudible) so what I would suggest is, if we can get the
concurrence, the only thing is the time factor, if we can
Ninutes of PC Meeting
June 21, 1903
Page 9
Engineering for Beaumont Avenue on his property and
retaining the Deodora trees,
placing on project property curb and gutter on Beaumont
Avenue if required by the engineering plan and,
C. if City approves, creation of an assessment district
for Beaumont Avenue. If the City has not completed
development of Beaumont Avenue engineering plans prior
to occupancy of the project, the City shall provide a
contract obligating American Housing Corporation for
payment of the required sums in a form acceptable to
werican Housing Corporation and City staff.
,,, Sims commented that he would have units ready in 7
months.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the determination before the
1st occupancy permits are issued there will be a contract
signed.
Seconded by Commissioner Schuelke. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AWS : commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Pries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
110IS: None.
ABSTAIN; Bone.
A55ENT: None.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the commission request that
City Council immediately take action for the development
design concept and engineering plan for Beaumont Avenue that
would include the appropriate curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
etc. on both sides from 14th Street to Brookside and that
any plan developed be submitted to the Planning Commission
for review and recommendation prior to approval by the City
Council.
9, An ordinance of the City of Beaumont, California, repealing
sections 17.55.005 through 17.55.200 of the Beaumont
municipal Code and repealing 17.£30.105 (d) (5) and adding a
now Chapter 17.55 to the Municipal Code entitled off- Street
parking and Loading.
On -.potion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Bruner to approve ordinance of the City of Beaumont,
California, repealing Sections 17.55.005 through 17.55.200
of the Beaumont Nunciipal Code and repealing 17.80.105 (d)
(5) and adding a new Chapter 17.55 to the municipal Coco
entitled Off- Street Parking and Loading.
Bruner
AYES: Co�m:lissioners , Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
: ;OES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
MinuLCS of PC Meeti119
June 21, 1988
Page 10
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:16 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning mmiss n Secretary
BE,AUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
JULY 19, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a I.egular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, July 19, 1988, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding:
,_,.wing was called to Order at 7:01 P.M.
On !:o II Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Fries and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner
Remy arrived shortly thereafter, and Commissioner. Schuelke was
excused.
Affidavit: of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. 1,1inutos for the Regular. Planning Commission Meeting of June
21, 1988, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules reported that the City
Council at its last meeting, approved the Off - Street Parking
requirements as recommended by the Planning Commission and
also approved the Handicap Space requirements both
items were distributed to the Commission.
4. 88- pUP -1, 88 -V -2 and 88 -ND -6, a proposed Church in existing
structure, and Variance for reduction of required number of
parking spaces, located at the Corner of 6th and Edgar
Streets. Applicant, Don Williams Deliverance Ministries.
CDD Koules presented the staff report explaining that a
Variance was needed since the parking lot was not adjacent
to the structure. He commented that the applicant has a
lease agreement showing that he has lease rights to the
narking lot. He noted that he has no problem with the
church having special meetings.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:09
P...., asking the applicant if he wished to speak in favor of
his project.
Don Williams, Pastor of the church, addressed the commission
stat —in q that he had given Mr. Koules his normal business
hours but also needs hours for special meetings; has an
option to buy the building.
Chairperson Burton then asked if there were any opponents
and there being none, she closed the public hearing at 7:10
P.M. turning the matter back to the commission for
PC G�Ilet: Ina Of
1 19, 1988
Pace 2
turns Only.
Also approving 88 -V -2 and recommending approval by City
Council of Negative Declaration 88 -ND -6; seconded by
Commissioner Fries. Motion carried unanimously with the
follo,.;ing roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Fries, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: Nona_.
ABSTAIN: None.
A.BSElNT: Commissioner Schuelke.
6. 88 -CUP -2 and 88 -ND -5, a proposed Three Bay Automotive Shop
performing maintenance and light repair, located at 1085
Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, A. B. Broyles.
CDD Koules presented the staff report and commented that the
report shows access of the alley which is incorrect. The
clot plan submitted by the applicant does show the access
off of 11th Street; however, this does not change staff's
recommendation for denial. The reason being that this is in
a C -11 Commercial Neighborhood Zone and the C -N zone as
indicated in the report shows the intention being for office
:professional and small convenience retail. Staff feels this
project is out of characater with the area. Also a negative
declaration was advertised but has not been prepared.
Should the commission and the city council approve this,
staff would still have to get together with applicant to
a:ork up conditions of approval and prepare a negative
declaration.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:19
P.M., asking 1•1r. Broyles for comments.
P(arshal Broyles, 1085 Beaumont Avenue, addressed the
commission stating that: wants to put up a small garage;
would be the only mechanic for quite awhile - maybe one
helper; doesn't plan on growing large; will advertise in the
local throw -away papers; will primarily get business from
the people that pull in the Circle -K across the street; will
live in the house in the front which totally blocks the view
of the garage from Beaumont Avenue; two story garage there
now; will landscape; wants to clean up the property.
Rocer Fern, 1164 Euclid, addressed
that: feels that what the applic
will blend in with the concept for
to approve this project.
Chairperson Burton than asked if
for this project.
the commission commenting
ant has proposed is good;
the area; thinks it wise
there were any opponents
Peat Coffer, 1061 Beaumont Avenue, addressed the commission
-I,F _... cl-.n 1i".o 7 hnnc cnnth of t- hia nYnnn qi Il Feels
PC meeting of
July 19, 1988
Pace 3
to s or 9 to fi five days a week - Monday through Friday;
does not intend to have on the street parking.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:29 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
There was discussion pertaining to this project with
Commissionr Remy questioning as to when this area of
Beaumont became C-N.
CDD Koules noted that
on both sides of the
by accident, it would
mind to take all five
could only interpret
the intent of the C -N
five blocks of commercial neighborhood
street from 7th to 12th was not there
seem that someone had some thinking in
blocks. Further commenting, that he
the Ordinance the way it is stated and
zoning is very clear.
Chairperson Burton commented that if the commission wants to
consider granting this CUP a better plan is needed and the
project will have to go back to staff in order for
conditions of approval to be prepared. Also, if this goes
back to staff for conditions of approval, then there is a
strong indication that this CUP will be approved with
Commissioners Remy and Fries commenting that they did not
see a problem with it.
CDD Koules noted that his understanding is that you are
recommending approval; however, it is to go back to staff
in order for staff to meet with the applicant and prepare
conditions of approval and a negative declaration.
On motion by Commissioner Remy to tentatively approval 88-
CUP-2 and that it be sent back to staff for conditions of
approval and a negative declaration. Further, that it be
continued to the Meeting of August 16, 1988; seconded by
Commissioner Fries. Motion carried with the following roll
call vote:
AYES!: Commissioners Remy, Fries and Chairperson Burton.
"OF Commissioner. Bruner.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schuelke.
ABSTAIN: None.
7. An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont adding Chapter 17.36 to
the Beaumont Municipal Code, entitled "Specific Planning
Area Zone ". Applicant, City of Beaumont.
Chairperson Burton opened the public hearing at 7:42 P.M.,
asking if anyone from the audience wished to speak, there
being none she then closed the public hearing at 7:43 P.M.
CDD Koules commented that the City is presently processing
three annexations totalling 1,400 acres which are being
PC mooting of
July 19, 1938
Page 4
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Schuelke.
WSTAIN: None.
Chairperson Burton noted for the record that she will be
gone from August 20, 1988 to September 29, 1988.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 7:47 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
4ee-'Y� Ch eT of
Plann g Cot fission Secretary
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
AUGUST 16, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
[Meeting on Tuesday, August 16, 1988, in the City Council Chambers
with Chairperson Burton presiding.
ttecting was called to Order at 7:00 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. f•linutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July
19, 1983, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3, Director's Report: CDD Koules reported that WDS Development
had submitted the Landscaping and Lighting Plan for Palm
Avenue and since the project had already been approved that
he could bring the design before the Commission under
Director's Report. It was noted; however, in the Minutes,
that it was to be brought back before the Commission for
review. Chairperson Burton then requested that it be placed
on the next agenda for review and discussion.
CON'T PUBLIC NEARING
q, 83-CUP-2 and 88 -ND -5, a proposed Three Bay Automotive Shop
performing maintenance nd
light rBpoyles located at 1085
Beaumont Avenue. Applicant,
CDD Koules commented that Mr. Broyles did contact the City
Engineer with Chairperson Burton noting that if the
Commission wanted to consider granting this CUP a better
plan is needed.
the
marshal & A. B. Broyles, 1085 Beaumont Avenue,
addressed
oval
commission discussing the recommended conditions of app
prepared by Mr. Dotson. He commented that he would like a
couple of years for Condition #1 - asking what would be
acceptable; wanted permission now to trim the trees; didn't
fully understand Condition #5; questioned the power poles.
Chairperson Burton noted that there were no conditions
for a CUP so therefore a CUP could not exist until the
conditions were prepared by both the City Engineer and
staff .
Minutes of PC Meeting
August 1.6, 1938
Page 2
Commissioner Schuelke commented that she would have to agree
with staff - to allow this type of project in that area
would be taking away from what the CN zone was meant to be.
Totally incompatible with the area. Commented that
initially this zoning was really studied very carefully and
it was agreed that it was to be kept pretty close to what it
is - small retail shoos.
Commissioner Remy noted that in the ordinance the
CUP allows service stations and drive -in restaurants
questioning the gas -pumps at Circle -K.
Commissioner Fries commented that after listening to all the
discussions, this project should not be in the CN zone
since a service station and a garage are two different
things.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke as per staff's
recommendations and findings that this application 88 -CUP -2
and Negative Declaration 88 -ND -5 be denied; seconded by
Commissioner Bruner. Motion carried with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, and Commissioner
Fries.
NOES: Commissioner Remy and Chairperson Burton.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Chairperson Burton then informed Mr. Broyles that he had ten
(10) days in which to appeal the commission's decision by
city council.
5. 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment
building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th and 8th
Streets. Applicant, Victor Schiro.
CDD Koules informed the commission that this item was to be
continued in order for the applicant to revise his plot
clan - alley is privately owned.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:35
P.m., and continued this matter to the meeting of September
20, 1988.
6. 88 -V -1 and 88 -ND -9, for a Variance to allow reduction of
front yard setback from 25 ft. to 15 ft., located at 1350 E.
6th Street. Applicant, Jasper Stone Development.
Dave Sumner Sanborn & Webb Engineering, 930 Beaumont Avenue
addressed the commission commenting: originally designed
for 32' of distance from the center line to the curb as per
City Engineer's request, then it was decided that the 32'
was not in the best interest for the City and area and chose
IR.. r;ry Enaineer requested 10' more feet of
Minutes of PC Meeting
August 16, 1988
Page 3
for 100' - 80 up to a certain point and then it becomes a
100'
On motion by Commissioner Fries to approve staff's
recommendation of 88 -V -1 and recommend approval by City
Council of Negative Declaration 88 -ND -9; seconded by
Commissioner Remy. Motion carried unanimously with the
following roll call vote:
It was noted by Commissioner Schuelke that she would be
abstaining since she owns property within 300 feet.
AYES: Commissioner Bruner., Fries, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schuelke.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
7. 87 -PP -2 and 87- ND -23, an Extension of Time for a proposed
144 apartment units plus amenities at the N/W Corner of 14th
and Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, CY.S Partnership.
CDD Koules explained that
staff report to 144 units
applicant has been working
drainage channel and that
flood channel because of
14th Street.
there was a correction on the
instead of 152 units and that
with the City Engineer over the
he wants more review over the
the extensive reconstruction of
Commissioner Schuelke noted that she is involved in
negotiations for a client on property which adjoins the
property in question and should abstain from voting.
On motion by Commissioner Bruner to approve the Extension of
Time on 87 -PP -2 and 87 -ND -23 for a period of one (1) year to
August 16, 1989; seconded by Commissioner Fries. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Fries, Remy and Chairperson
Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schuelke.
8. An Ordinance of the City of Beaumont adding Chapter 17.36 to
the Beaumont Municipal Code entitled "Specific Planning Area
Zone." Applicant, City of Beaumont.
CDD i;oules noted that this item was just an informational
item only.
r�
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 6, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, September 6, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Acting Chairperson Remy presiding.
Meeting was called to Order at 7:30 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson
Remy. Chairperson Burton was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
August 16, 1988, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules noted. that City Attorney
Ryskamp might want to address the letter that was
distributed to the commission by Mr. Thomas' attorney (see
attached letter). Mr. Ryskamp explained the City's position
in that it was not until after the meeting of 3/22/88 on
4/19/88 *, that items missing from the project were received
by the City - in which case the City has a year from this
date in which to take action. Also, the City never received
a copy of the actual Notice from Mr. Thomas giving 60 days
in which to act and that the Notice itself was not dated.
Ile noted that a new law states that it is not enough for the
year to run, there also has to be a public notice as well as
a 7 clay notice prior to the public notice.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres
consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi-
family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The
residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9
phases and the commercial development at a future time;
located on the south side of Highway 60, and south of
P;estern Knolls Drive, at the westerly City limits.
Applicant, John Thomas, Beaumont Associates.
CDD Koules Presented the staff report commenting that he had
a real concern regarding the environmental impact not being
done. Also, commenting that the City Engineer should
thoroughly review the project and that the City Engineer
stared that he cannot review the project without having the
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 2
with full reservations of rights for the record;
c) time period was running from July 1987;
d) planning director assured them they would have their
environmental evaluation a week after the Meeting of
March 22, 1988 - all issues have been addressed;
e) notice to City was sent June of this year and unless set
for public hearing, Mr. Thomas is going to notify the
public that the project will be deemed approved;
f) notice given to the City June 17th and hand delivered to
the planning director;
g) participation tonight is to continue to work with the
City even though the project has been deemed approved
they are here to ask that you concede to their position
in order to avoid a law suit;
h) no facts in the record before you tonight that says we
don't have access to this project;
i) no facts in the record to support a denial.
John Thomas, Owner of the property, representing Beaumont
Associates, addressed the commission commenting:
a) taken many years to get before the commission;
b) showed a slide of the open space, what is included and
how the project will look;
c) presented a binder to each of the commissioners
outlining his project and documentation in its entirety
(collected binders at end of meeting);
d) city engineer gave a letter stating he could be supplied
with sewer and the city manager said the same thing;
e) was told that 200 sewer hook -ups would be reserved;
f) met with Caltrans many times and complied with
everything they were told to do;
g) feels the City did not follow through with their
commitments.
CDD Koules asked to respond to Mr. Thomas' comments and
explained that on June 24, 1987 the tentative map was filed
and the application was filed July 16th on the development
plan - the idea being that a development plan was the same
as a specific plan. Further, the General Plan designates
this property as PUD and underneath says "Specific Plan
required." This was mentioned to Mr. Thomas and he thought
it had been added to the map at a later time. Mr. Koules
went on to read what the state law says about a Specific
Plan. fie showed the Environmental Drafts pertaining to
Three Rings Ranch and Potrero Creek, noting that these are
the types of documentation that the City is requiring.
Also, there cannot be a negative declaration.on this project
since it has a too significant impact. Ile acknowledged that
there may have been some slippage, but this project started
off on the wrong foot - no one bothered to read the general
plan and say that a specific plan should be submitted.
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 3
a) not speaking in favor of or against;
b) concerned about the access of this project;
c) not in favor of what appears to be the access to the
freeway at the location presented;
d) would like to hear from Caltrans.
alph tdheeler California Dept. of Transportation, addressed
the commission commenting.
a) lot of inquiry by Mr. Thomas as to access to Route 60;
b) 1953 the California Transportation Commission adopted
the Route 60 as a freeway;
c) freeway agreement with the County at this time that a
slip -ramp type of interchange would be located in an
approximate location as seen on Mr. Thomas' plans;
d) Federal Highway Administration has some requirements
dated 10/30/86 pertaining to locations of interchanges
and Caltrans also has a process that was approved and
adopted 11/85 for new public road connections;
e) technically the State owns access through Route 60;
f) south side of Route 60 there are two 14' openings that
are private access openings;
g) read paragraph from Federal Highway Administration dated
10/30/86 (see attached) pertaining to spacing of
interchanges;
j) according to FHWA this location is still a rural area
which will require a 2 mile spacing and the spacing
would be based on the centerline structure crossing at
the 60 and 10 Interchange. A 2 mile spacing from that
point back on Route 60 would put an interchange about a
mile west of the western most point of the John Thomas
property;
k) it is possible to get an interchange by a process which
the City can enter into that is a Project Development
Process where the City processes certain reports
usually takes about 24 months;
1) interchange would have to be approved by the California
Transportation Commission as well as the Federal Highway
Administration;
m) at this time Caltrans has no funding;
n) there is no priority to build an interchange at this
location nor is there one within a 10 year plan
o) only way to get an interchange at this location would be
for the local agency (County or City) to come up with
the funding to build the interchange and make the
required improvements along this portion of Route 60;
p) a way for the City to build the access at 60 would be
for all the property owners in the area to put forth
their fair share through an assessment district;
q) John Thomas' project does not have access to Route 60,
there is only two 14' openings which are private
driveways.
.7nhn Thomas, asked to address the commission pertaining to
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 4
after planning commission approval and to work with the
City and the City to act as a Lead Agency with Caltrans;
e) has complied with all requests and information and now
new rules are in effect - reason for legal measure;
f) one week from the meeting in March 1988, he was to be
informed as to whether he would need a full blown FIR or
additional work - six months later he finds out the City
would like to have it;
g) does not intend to start over.
Commissioner Schuelke then asked if any new conditions had
been placed on this project with CDD Koules commenting that
the conditions of approval have not been written because the
city engineer cannot write the conditions due to the
access problems.
Ralph Wheeler, speaking from the audience commented that
once the City and the County agreed to the type of
Circulation Plan required in the area, they would present to
Caltrans a feasibility study based on what they felt was
required to begin the project now in process, suggesting
California Trnasportation Commission approve a break -in
access which allows an interchange to be constructed. This
would require a commitment from the City and County to the
project as well as funding.
Attorney Gregory Weiler, asked to clarify for the record
that Mr. Wheeler said that access for this project is
available.
There was lengthy discussion with Acting Chairperson Remy
asking Mr. Thomas about the forty -five hundred feet lots.
Mr. Thomas noted that at the time the zone was approved
there was a set of development standards that went with the
zone PRMF and he complied with the development standards at
that time. Commissioner Fries questioned quality housing on
small lots and also submittal of the map. Mr. Thomas noted
that it took 2 years to complete the development plans that
was submitted in June 1987. Commissioner Bruner commented
that if this plan was approved how would you have access
with Mr. Thomas commenting that even if the City and State
both say "no way" the other access would be to go down 4th
Street. Commissioner Bruner further asked Mr. Thomas what
he would do if this was approved tonight - if he had any
definite plans for access to Highway 60. Mr. Thomas stated
"no" but he would work with the City in trying to resolve
their issue regarding the sewer. Acting Chairperson Remy
noted they could not approve something that does not have an
access to it. Mr. Thomaas commented that the ability to get
access is there on recorded documentation but getting the
public access needs a project study and unless there is an
approval he could never commit himself to do anything that
... . 1A ,., mnnpv since he could not rely on the
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 5
P.M., turning the matter back to the commission.
There was lengthy discussion by the commission with the
feeling that the City would have to become the "lead agency"
and put together a plan outlining the accesses for the
properties in this area. Commissioner Schuelke noted that
the city engineer should get together with staff and
developers and have the City initiate and work with Caltrans
and put together a proper plan for access to all the areas
on ilighway 60 - cannot build the plan until the access roads
are provided.
CDD Koules explained that meetings had been held with
various developers trying to find out who is willing to
participate on sewer capacity with Mr. Bounds asking for
letters of commitment from the developers so there could be
monies committed to expand the sewer treatment plant.
John Thomas, commented that they do have a will serve
letter from Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District but hadn't
exercised it because onced annexed you have to put up money.
l
Attorney Ryskamp noted that unless the project is
conditioned and he has to provide the public improvements,
being in
he can build the project without the freeway access
olace. Mr. Ryskamp outlined the following alternatives for
the commission:
°s
a) you can deny the project because there is not adequate
information and make findings relevant to the project
which is probably the most desirable for the City;
b) you can approve the project but you will violate CEQA;
c) some kind of cooperation that will allow steps taken to
get the project fully planned properly.
Attorney Weiler, commented that they would be willing to
S5 bmit to any reasonable conditions to address concerns for
access and sewer.
John Thomas, commented that if his project was approved he
would be willing to work with the City and the other
developers in trying to fund the sewer plan and Beaumont
Cherry Valley Water District but will not do a complete EIR.
Attorney Ryskamp explained the proper procedure for CEQA and
commented that projects are not approved without complying
with CEQA.
CDD Koules noted that Mr. Thomas submitted an Expanded
Initial Study to help determine if an EIR would be required.
Attorney Weiler, commented that they would have done an EIR
but not now so the City is going to have to "bite the
h��I 1pt" anei Annrnvp thia nrniect without a full blown EIR
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 6
together their conditions of approval - that they address
the issue of density and the environmental issue as to what
they recommend and which items that need to be mitigated,
and for something to get started with or without this
project on initiating something for the accesses as well as
a plan for the funding mechanism and information pertaining
to the sewer.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the motion needed a date for the
continuance and an agreement from the developer was needed
so whatever action is taken at the continued meeting it will
be deemed to have taken place this evening without
prejudicing either the City's or Mr. Thomas' rights and to
proceed relative to the issues that has been raised and
discussed concerning the notice and the Permit Streamlining
Ac*_. If acquiesence is not possible he strongly recommends
against a continuance.
CDD Koules explained that the plan for a funding mechanism
could be a very long drawn out effort because the adjacent
property owners have to get together with Commissioner
Schuelke commenting with or without this project she would
like to direct staff to look into the funding mechanism to
be readv for the developments in the future.
John 'Thomas, noted that based on a good economy he would say
that total out would probably take around 5 years.
Attornev Weiler, commented that what he is hearing tonight
is that the commission cannot make a decision because they
are unable between a negative declaration or an EIR. Could
go to court and have a hearing within 85 days and have a
judge tell the commission to approve and to hell with CEQA.
CDD Koules commented that usually the applicant hires an
environmental analyst to look at the site and then the
analyst makes a determination whether it should be a focused
EiR or a full EIR. Ile doesn't feel that a negative
declaration can be filed on this project. -T.f (, /-C t "%
Pih = f "'t lYV7 w. 7.
Commissioner Schuelke commented that she would add to her n'
motion that the applicant be directed to consult with
environmental agency to prepare an EIR.
Attornev Ryskamp noted that the Notice of Preparation is a-b�'
crucial first step in getting CEQA moving asking when could `i�4,<S
a notice be sent out with CDD Koules commenting three or f
four working days.
Commissioner Schuelke also wanted clarification as to the
reference made about the 200 sewer hook -ups that were
committed.
Minutes of PC Meeting
September 6, 1988
Page 7
rights nor their rights and any action taken at the
continued meeting be deemed to have been taken place this
evening for purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act.
Mr. Weiler, Attorney for Mr. Thomas commented that he didn't
mind continuing the hearing since any time periods from now
until the new hearing is irrelevant - his legal position is
such that it is already approved.
Attorney Rsykamp stated that failure to take action today
means you are waiving the right to contest this issue prior
to the continued date with Mr. Weiler noting "up to and
including October 3, 1988" and would follow up with a letter
to this effect.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Acting
Chairperson Remy,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 11:04 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Cry ylor .�Ki
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
CALIFORNIA DIVISION OFFICE
PROCEDURE MEMORANDUM
LIN
Interchanges - New or Revised I nrtnhPr 30. 19
]. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Division Office Procedure Memorandum is to describe the
office policy regarding the revision, modification and addition of new
interchanges to the freeway system in California.
2. GENERAL
The California Freeway System has been constructed at great cost with
control of access to insure operating safety, permanence and utility and in
some cases with flexibility to provide for possible future expansion. It is
expected that access changes along these freeways will be required; however,
it is essential that proposed revisions be fully evaluated and made only
when the current and future functioning and safety of the freeway is not
compromised.
3. RESOURCES
AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets"
AASHTO "A Policy on Design Standards -- Interstate System"
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23
4. BACKGROUND
-There is an ever - increasing number of proposals for our concurrence to
modify or add new interchanges to the freeway system. The pressure for
development is so great that there are many projects which will be funded by
private developers with no Federal funds involved. At the same time
California's freeway system is aging (and operating at capacity at many
locations), its ability to accommodate increased traffic demands caused by
new land development is diminishing. It is critical, therefore, to insure
that all operational impacts to the freeway are fully assessed prior to our
action on new or significantly modified interchanges.
s. pn_lry
The primary purpose of an urban freeway is to accommodate intra- regional and
the longer trips. Short trips, therefore, should be made on the local
street network. To mitigate transportation impacts of new development, more
LAW OFFICES
PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON
A PMTNCRSNIP 1NCLUOMO PROIESSIONLL CORPORATIONS
P. O. BOX 8090
4000 MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
ANOELO J. nALNILRI'
ROLLRi I WALDRON•
ALAN N. K.C.ER'
ROSCRi CINRML'
JAM " E. WILNLLN•
OLN NIS O. Til[R•
YICNALL J. OP[CNE•
C[FNN C. ROTNROCN•
NIS Iv. ON...
oA V.o 0, I....
CNARLLL N.N NTCR'
L - C...0 RAN LS
nK+ A NE.... �
C4 MOR J. •JOTAA
OON I
1.100"' N. wu.0
WARREN A
WILLIA NS
JOHN R. LIST [R
IR[DE RI •, uNN
NANCY L. .
P.VLR.J0N.SON NSON
LRVCC W O.N M[NLTCR
.RENTF N, J, FER i
.RENT FORD J.I..OT.A
NICNCLL[ N IVJC.OTO
N OIIU AN J. NOOICN
LORI A. O.vIC4
n. IOSTLR.JR_
OARV C. N'CISSCRO
BY HAND DELIVERY
City Clerk
City of Beaumont
Post Office Box 158
Beaumont, CA 92223
EAST TOWER - SUITE 1000
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92560
19141 651 -9400
September 61 1988
WRITER'S DIRECT
DIAL NUMBER
851 -7238
TELECOPIER 17141 661 -1554
TELEX: 5106016110
REFER TO FILE N0,
13826 -002
Re: 87 DP -1 and 87 TM -3 /Participation at Planning
Commission Hearing
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is intended to advise the City of Beaumont that
Beaumont Associates will participate in the September 6, 1988
Planning Commission meeting pertaining to the above - captioned
project under a full reservation of rights. As previously
expressed to the City Attorney, it is the position of Beaumont
Associates that the subject development applications have already
been approved as a matter of law pursuant to Government Code
Section 65956. Hence, the Planning Commission has no discretion
in approving the above - captioned development applications at its
hearing on September 6, and we trust will be advised by for
City Attorney. However, to facilitate approval
informational purposes for members of the public, Beaumont
Associates will participate at the hearing.
Neither Beaumont Associates' decision to participate, nor
any aspect of such participation, shall be deemed a waiver of any
of its rights accruing under the Permit Streamlining Act.
As we have already informed the City Attorney, the City
Council's failure to approve the above - captioned project
applications at their next Council meeting, with or without a
.., ___ -- -- i — m o i. nn rpP _ ,mmendation, will force Beaumont
PALMIERI. TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON
City Clerk, City of Beaumont
September 6, 1988
Page Two
Associates to immediately file a Petition for Writ Mandate wand
Complaint for Declaratory Relief whereby such applications
be deemed approved by court decree. I
Please call if you have any quesVon
ly yours,
. Wei
GNW /dtm
Wjj__1
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 20, 1988
The Planning Comm ission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, September 20, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Acting Chairperson Remy presiding.
Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Acting Chairperson
Remy. Chairperson Burton was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Minutes for the Regular
September 61 1988, were
following amendments.
Planning Commission Meeting of
approved as submitted with the
Page 5, paragraph 4 to read:
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the project should be
conditioned so that public improvements for the project be
built either with freeway access or access to 4th Street.
Page 6, paragraph 7 to read:
Commissioner Schuelke commented that the applicant be
directed to consult with an environmental consultant to make
the determination on whether the project would require a
focused EIR or a full EIR.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules announced that Mr. Dotson is
with us this evening and would address the Commission later.
Also on September 12, 1988, the City Council sustained the
Commission's recommendation and denied the appeal of
Broyles' CUP.
CON'T PUBLIC HEARING:
q 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment
building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th and 8th
Streets. Applicant, Victor Schiro.
Acting Chairperson Remy opened the public hearing at 7:10
P.M., and continued this matter to October 4, 1988.
5. Applicant requests permission per Section 15.28.090 of
Beaumont Municipal Code, to relocate single family dwelling
unit to site located east side of Michigan Ave.,
approximately 300 ft. south of its intersection with First
�� -_ -1 D_ J. Ward.
Page 2
conditions will be imposed as if a new structure was
Also, Mr. Koules noted that the commission
Same section of the
being built.
might want to consider revision of this
ordinance. at
Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing
asking for proponents /opponents
�,iishin from the audience
Acting
7:20 P.M., eak.
to speak* the commission
86 Michigan, Beaumont, parcel
would be
D.J. Ward, utters on this P ment and the
commenting that curbs and q develop
silly because there is 500 ft. of 20 feet wide; 5th
frontage of this lot on the street is only operty; never had to
that he has moved on to this P delay could cause
building anything like this before; room
go through the street
problems since the the den pet; sets back off living
' and rain could destroy car that is part of the lot;
about 200 ft. with a 20 ally divided.
have separate parcels leg
no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson
There being
public hearing at 7:23 P.M., turning
Remy then closed the
the matter back to the commission for discussion• to
On motion by Commissioner Fries to grant permission
single family dwelling unit; seconded he by
relocate the q
Motion carried unanimously with the
Commissioner Bruner.
following roll call vote: Fries and Acting
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke,
AYES:
Chairp erson Remy.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton. that Section
Also on motion by Commissioner Schuelke
the Municipal Code be deleted or amended so
a
or in a
15.28.090 of le family
that similar requests be handled administratSingy
similar to the approval °f Bruner. Motion
manner seconded by Commissioner
residences; with the following roll call vote:
carried unanimously Fries and Acting
AYES:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke,
Chairperson Remy.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton.
6 88 -PM-10 (PM 22949) and 88- ND -13, division of land into two
parcels, located at the northwest corner of 14th Street and
Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, FCE Associates.
the staff report and conditions the
CDD Koules Presente d royal of this item subject to
approval recommending app
conditions of approval.
Acting Chairperson Remy then openedotentsu hearing
from the audience
t_- .,,-.,nnnents /oPP
Page 3
There being no one
Remy then closed
the matter back to
else wishing to speak, Acting Chairperson
the public hearing at 7:37 P.M., turning
the commission for discussion.
On motion by Commissioner
City Council of 88-PM -10
seconded by Commissioner
following roll call vote:
Bruner, Fries and Acting Chairperson
Burner to recommend approval by
and Negative Declaration 88- ND -13;
Fries. Motion carried with the
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners
Remy.
None.
Commissioner Schuelke.
Chairperson Burton.
7. 88 -V -3, and 88- ND -12, (88-MPP -10)
located between Elm and Minnesota
260' south of Fourth Street.
Carriers, Inc.
Transit Truck Terminal,
Avenues, approximately
Applicant, Three Coast
CDD Koules presented the staff report for this Variance
commenting that this would also be reviewed under to which ovemes
Plot Plan with conditionhefzoning- sordinance specifically
will be forthcoming.
calls out that in no case shall barbed wire be used as part
of the fence. However, several surrooundingrbusinechainhalink
strand barbed wire fence on top
fence. The project will have a 1,200 feet ofaoffice notlmore
and trucks will be placed in the enclosed y
than 48 hours. Conditions for improvement of Minnesota will
be requested.
Commissioner Schuelke expressed concern about this
coming under a Minor Plot Plan.
Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at
3:52 P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
addressed the
line that runs on
project
Darle Iielmers 566 N Ramsey, Banning
commission commenting.
there is a Sewer
Minnesota.
Dave Johnson, 12573 7th SDuratPlasticpcannot
comission commentin
this project.
addressed the
be compared to
Commissioner Schuelke noted that if this particular use is
permitted in that zone and it falls under a Minor Plot Plan
or anyone else who has a use on an
then Dura Plastic not
unimproved site, in a zone that allows that use,
need to come before the Planning Commission.
There being no one else w t hing
Remy hen closed the p to speak, Acting ChaitPr n
tur ning
public hearing at 8:01 P.M., g
the matter back to the commission for discussion.
commented that hearing is on the next meeting
CDD Koules
Page 4
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton.
SCHEDULED MATTERS.
Out of Sequence.
9. Review and discussion of landscape and lighting plan for
Palm Avenue pursuant to Condition No. 15 for WDS
Development.
Mr. Ro er Deutschman, 819 Stephens Ave., Fullerton,
representative of WDS Development displayed a map of Palm
Avenue and explained that a district to maintain landscaping
would involve each property owner within the subdivision to
pay a certain amount of money along with his regular
property taxes and this money will be given to the City to
maintain all of the landscaping.
Joe DSulley, WDS Develo
mentioning one problem
Michigan Avenue - the
Co., Mr. Dotson, Mr. K
of this cul -de -sac;
Condition #15 deleted.
3ment, addressed the commission
involved with Condition #15 which is
cul -de -sac. Have found that Edison
pules and theirselves are not in favor
would like to have this portion of
Jim Dotson recommended that the applicant's request be
honored and delete the portion of Condition #15 pertaining
to the cul -de -sac at Michigan Avenue.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to amend Condition #15
for 87 -TM -8, Amendment #2, dated May 23, 1988, by deleting
the phrase pertaining to the cul -de -sac on Michigan Avenue
and that the treatment of the cul -de -sac be turned over to
the City Engineer; seconded by Commissioner Bruner. Motion
carried unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, SChuelke, Fries and Acting
Chairperson Remy.
HOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Commission recessed at 8:32 P.M., reconvening at 8:38 P.M.
8. Request by James Dotson, City Engineer, to address the
Planning Commission regarding clarification of direction to
write Conditions of Approval for John Thomas' project, 87-
DP -1 and 87 -TM -3.
CDD Koules explained that at the September 6, 1988 meeting,
this item was continued to October 4, 1988 in order to have
the City Engineer write conditions of approval and direct
staff to send out Notices of Preparation on the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR Notices have gone out by certified mail to all
the pertinent agencies.
Mr. Dotson addressed the commission commenting that he
Prnm 1ha enmmission as to what it is
Page 5
Mr. Dotson noted that if you approve a project and this
applicant is capable of pulling together everything, then he
has the right to bring improvement plans and final maps in,
get them signed off and then build. Also, he needs all the
legal documents for this project due to the easement - needs
to see if the easement prevents backing lots up to it.
Commissioner Schuelke noted that if they had a letter
stating that conditions of approval could not be placed on
this project since there are too many details missing, then
the commission could follow the city engineer's
recommendation that there is not enough information.
Mr. Dotson commented that in effect what he had said is
that the map has not been accepted because it is inadequate
and this was the recommendation to Valerie. Also his
recommendation was made a year ago that this project isn't
even close to being a plan and not to accept it - doesn't
know how it got to this point.
Also Mr. Dotson commented that he thought that the City
could be sued in leading the applicant into believing he
has a project.
There was lengthy discussion with Commissioner Schuelke
informing Mr. Dotson to draft the conditions as to his
recommendation and if unable to do so then send whatever he
has in order for the commission to have at the October 4,
1988 meeting.
CDD Koules noted that we are proceeding as was noted at the
public hearing to come before the commission October 4, 1988
with conditions.
Mr. Dotson further noted that the Circulation Element would
have to be amended and that he had about 11 circulation
element amendments that he wants to present to the city in
the next couple of months.
Commissioner Schuelke commented that the city engineer and
city staff form some type of a way of preparing for
development in this area so that when people do make an
application to develop, they (commission) can work with
them.
CDD Koules noted that the general plan has always called for
a Specific Plan on this site.
Commissione
seminar at
allowed to
November 9,
would back
4, 1988.
Schuelke presented
UCR and asked if th
attend. It is to
1988, cost - $145.
with this information
literature for a one day
B commissioners might be
be held on a Wednesday,
CDD Koules noted that he
at the meeting of October
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9:31 P.M.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 4, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
meeting on Tuesday, October 4, 1988, in the City Council Chambers
with Acting Chairperson Remy presiding.
Meeting was called to Order at 7:05 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Acting Chairperson Remy.
Commissioner Fries arrived shortly thereafter and Chairperson
Burton was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. Minutes for the Regular, Planning Commission Meeting Po�� a
September 20, 1988, were approved as submitted. � e
C,
2. Oral Communication: M
1
3. Director's Report: CDD Koules reported that at the City
Council Meeting of September 26, 1988, they reaffirmed the
Commission's approval of the D. J. Ward move -on building and
directed City Attorney to amend Section 15.28.090 of the
Beaumont Municipal Code that deals with move -on buildings so
that in the future the move -on buildings would be handled in
the same manner as a single family .residence.
ON ITEMS 4, 5 AND 7 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:10
P.M., AND CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 1988.
4. 87- PP -17, 8'1 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment
building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th & 8th Streets.
Applicant, Victor Schir.o.
5. 87- PP -19, a proposed three apartment units, located at 673
Massachusetts. Applicant, Howard Haig.
7. 88 -PP -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, a proposed 60 unit Travelodge
motel and a Variance to allow a 55 ft. high sign with a 200'
square foot surface area, located on the south side of
Fourth Street about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue.
Applicant, Sam Lee and Daniel Tsai.
6. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres
consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi-
family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The
residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9
_i__ -__ __1 .. - --- - -I A—_1 ... cn+ a+ A fntnra time:
Minutes of PC
October 4, 1988
Page 2
to the Planning Commission to address all the meetings
he has had with Beaumont staff members; the conditions of
approval asks for all the construction documents and all
the improvement plans before approval is given to the
tentative map - which is never done; Mr. Thomas elaborated
on each condition of approval objecting to all.
Acting Chairperson Remy then closed the public hearing at
7:40 P.M., turning the matter over to the commission.
It was the feeling of the commission that there were a lot
of unanswered questions pertaining to this project and on
motion by Commissioner Schuelke to continue this hearing
until the next meeting to allow the engineer for the
project the opportunity to address the Planning Commission
as to his views regarding the conditions of approval by the
City Engineer, and to request that our City Engineer be
present at that meeting as well as the City Manager.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that normally the City Manager
prefers not to attend the commission meetings because he
attends and represents the City Council meetings.
Commissioner Schuelke then commented that if the City
Manager could not attend, if he would address the commission
in the form of a letter pertaining to his comments and
commitments for the project - specifically sewer.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that before the motion is adopted we
need a statement from Mr. Thomas on the record that he
agrees as he agreed on the 6th of September that any action
taken at the continued meeting which is being given at his
request be deemed to have taken place on the 6th of
September for purposes of the Streamlining Act.
Mr. John Thomas, then requested that this matter be
continued to the meeting of October 25, 1988 in order to
give Hubert Webb the opportunity to share information and
discuss with the commission questions they might have;
however, in continuing this matter, he would not be waiving
any of his benefits which may have resulted or accured rom 7
violating the State Streamlining Act and further, whatever
action is taken would be back dated to the 6th of September.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that any action that takes place
at the meeting of October 25, 1988 is deemed to have
occurred on the 6th of September for purposes of the Permit
Streamlining Act.
Commissioner Bruner then seconded the motion. Motion
carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Acting
Chairperson Remy.
Minutes of PC
October 4, 1988
Page 3
of the commission to either hear this and condition it or
continue the item and refer it back to staff. The applicant
earlier represented to staff a plan they prepared that would
delete the parking within the required front yard setback.
The recommendation of staff would be no parking in the front
yard setback.
Acting Chairperson Remy then opened the public hearing at
7:53 P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Mr. John Jones, 1159 Orange Ave, addressed the commission
commenting: yesterday they were informed that there was a
problem with the parking and they prepared a new site plan
which was distributed to the commission; the extension of
the setback is incorporated in the landscaping areas; added
four parking spaces on the south side; have answered the
question about the setback, feels this matter should not be
continued and because of the approval indicated in the staff
report would like to have it considered and approved
tonight.
Mr. David Hacker, 490 S. Farrell Dr., Palm Springs
addressed the commission speaking in favor of the project
and commented that Pennsylvania is shown on the General Plan
to be a secondary highway and as such is meant to carry a
good amount of traffic - this would be a normal and a good
usage of this type of street for a facility of this type. i
Mr. Mark J. Stoker, 6342 Airway Dr., Yucca Valley, addressed
The commissio—T s stating he isa general contractor from Yucca
Valley; has outgrown the existing facility in this
community; gave background on type of construction method
that will be used; vacant land in the back will be used for
future growth; will comply with the ordinance pertaining to
fencing.
CDD Koules noted that he would like to keep the fencing open
for a closer look as what the interpretation of the
ordinance is.
Mr. Darrell Cornett, 13116 Palo Alto, Beaumont, addressed
the commission speaking in favor of building the Kingdom
Hall.
Mr. Pat Moore 1186 Pennsylvania, Beaumont, addressed the
commission speaking in opposition of the project. His
property adjoins the property in question; concerned over
traffic problem, noise; wanted to know if his zoning would
be affected.
CDD Koules explained that it would not affect his zoning.
Acting Chairperson Remy then closed the public hearing at
Minutes of PC
October 4, 1988
Page 4
to control the dust on the unimproved portion of the lot.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke to approve 88 -PUP -2 and
recommendation of approval by City Council of 88 -ND -5 as
submitted, subject to the amended conditions of approval by
staff and the city engineer. Seconded by Commissioner
Fries. Motion carried unanimously with the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Acting
Chairperson Remy.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Chairperson Burton.
9. Appeal filed by Adams Advertising.
This item is to be noticed for the hearing of October 25,
1988.
10. City Attorney's legal opinion in response to Commissioner
Schuelke's question of Minor Plot Plans /Plot Plan
requirements for M -L zone.
It was felt by the Commission that Mr. Ryskamp's
interpretation of Section 17.50.205 (b) 1RR1 was clear in
that if a project proposes to use vacant or undeveloped
land and there are off site improvements, and no further off
site improvements will be required, the minor plot plan may
be used, if off site improvements will be required, it is
necessary to have a full plot plan with hearing.
11. Authorization for Planning Commission Members to attend UCR
Workshop on "Property Development Agreements and Vesting
Tentative Map" (cost $145. each).
Mr. Ryskamp commented that he and CDD Koules would get
together and schedule a Workshop to be held here in Beaumont
on a Saturday morning sometime before Christmas.
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Cry yl
BEAUMONT ASSOCIATES
LIMITEO PARTNERSHIP
GENERAL PARTNER
October 4, 1988
City of Beaumont
Planning Commission
City Clerk
PO Box 158
Beaumont, CA 92223 -0158
JOHN THOMAS
RE: 87 DP -1 and 87 TM -3 /Participation at Planning Commission Hearing
HAND DELIVERED TO PLANNING COD IISSION CLERK
Dear Sir or Madam:
This hand delivered letter is intended to advise the City of Beaumont that
Beaumont Associates will participate in the October 4, 1988 planning commission
hearing pertaining to the above - captioned project under a full reservation
of rights. Neither Beaumont Associates' decision to participate, nor any
aspect of such participation, shall be deemed a waiver of any of its rights
accruing under the Permit Streamlining Act.
J
Respectful,l Submitt ,
Jo omas
aumont Associates
PHOWU
OCT 6 - 1988
CITY OF BEAUMONT
PLANNING DEPT.
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 25, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, October 25, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding:
';eeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Remy, Fries and Chairperson
Burton.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
October 4, 1988, were approved as submitted with a typo on
page 2, paragraph 7, line 6, " accured" should have been
"accrued ".
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4. 87- PP -17, 87 -V -6 and 87- ND -39, a proposed 4 unit apartment
building, located at 738 Chestnut between 7th and 8th
Streets. Applicants, Victor & Vincent Schiro.
It should be noted for the record that the staff report
shows the Negative Declaration No. as 87 -ND -37 and it should
be corrected to read 87- ND -39.
CDD Koules presented the staff report and noted because of
an area shortage for the fourth unit, it was felt that a
variance would accommodate the fourth unit since the
applicant is only short 258 of the area required. Also, the
proposal would tie together a common 20' driveway since Mr.
Schiro has already developed the property adjacent to the
south which has a 10' driveway on the side.
Commissioner Remy questioned the 20' driveway noting that
she thought the fire department wanted a 24' driveway with
CDD Koules noting that the structures are accessible from
the street and the hose lines could fight a fire without
having access onto the site.
Chairperson Burton then asked for proponents /opponents from
the audience wishing to speak.
PC Minutes
october 25, 1988
Page 2
Attorney Ryskamp noted that his concern is a
with two different owners in the future
creating considerable problems as to who
driveway.
common easement
could end up
maintains the
City Engineer Dotson commented that if the property is
merged you deny the applicant the right to sell separately
and asked what authority do we have to force this kind of a
merger?
Attorney Ryskamp commented that where there is a common
driveway it is creating an easement - we do have the
authority.
Mr. Vincent Schiro, addressed the commission again noting no
fence can be put down the middle; has to maintain the
driveway in order to compete.
Attorney Ryskamp felt that we are creating a potential
future problem with an easement and asked Mr. Schiro if he
was opposed to the concept of merging the two properties
with Mr. Schiro stating "not at all." Mr. Schiro didn't
feel it was a problem; however, he is not opposed.
CDD Koules noted that he does not anticipate the problems
that Mr. Ryskamp mentioned. It is a much more complex
process to merge the two lots. The applicant does have the
right to create the lots separately - doesn't see what would
be accomplished.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:22 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission for discussion.
It was noted by Commissioner Schuelke that the original
proposal from the packet of 10/20/87, the driveway was 24
feet between the two buildings and that proof of a
reciprocal agreement between the two parcels was in the
staff file.
CDD ICoules commented that there was a reciprocal agreement
that the parties agree no fence shall be built on the
southerly line of the seller's property nor the northerly
line of the neighbor's property - just a fence restriction.
No one can build a fence on the common lot line.
Chairoerson Burton noted that if it was 24 feet on the
original proposal, it should also be a 24 foot driveway now.
After lengthy discussion and in checking the plot plan from
the original staff report and in reading page 117 of Title
17, it was determined that the driveway should be 24 feet.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that the original application and
filing date is part of the project and the variance is now
PC minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 3
City Engineer
increase nor
check the map
Dotson noted that a lot line adjustment canribt
decrease the number of lots. will have to
act.
Attorney Ryskamp noted that relative to the merger issue it
is felt that research should be done and that he be directed
by the commission to come back with language to make the
procedure possible so that in this type of situation there
is a simple procedure. CDD Koules noted that he did not
agree with this - felt we are getting procedure bound.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that he wanted to be able to
waive the map requirement and in the future have a procedure
so that in this situation we do not have to record a map.
CDD Koules stated that he maintains that the State
Subdivision Flap Act disallows you from merging two parcels
with a Certificate of Compliance.
Chairperson Burton commented that the commission will direct
the City Attorney to research it and find out what the
City's position is and bring back a report.
On motion by Commissioner Remy, seconded by Commissioner
Fries that this project be returned to the applicant to re-
design the project to comply with the driveway requirement.
Motion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. 87- PP -19, a proposed three apartment units, located at 673
Massachusetts. Applicant, Howard Haig.
Per request of CDD Koules, this matter was continued to the
Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 15, 1988,
since the applicant is still working on his revised plot
plan.
6. 88 -PP -3, 88 -V -4 and 88- ND -14, a proposed 60 unit Travelodge
Motel and a Variance to allow a 55 ft. high sign with a 200
sq. ft. surface area, located on the south side of Fourth
Street about 300 feet east of Beaumont Avenue. Applicant,
Sam Lee and Daniel Tsai.
CDD Koules presented the staff report recommending approval
of this project. He noted that Condition #7 should be
amended to read "Gas Cc" not "Edison Co."
,Ir, Danny Lee, 2052 Palma Drive, Rolling heights, addressed
the commission noting that the company name is Evergreen
.,pP(lq) the 55' sign in order to attract highway
PC "Jinutes
October 25, 1988
?age 4
Declaration 88 -ND -14 by city Council, subject to the
conditions of approval; seconded by Commissioner Bruner.
[notion carried unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
City Engineer Dotson commented that this project will
increase the run -off (drainage) into the channel that
crosses the Ilershey's property on 3rd and California.
7. 87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3, a proposed development on 160 acres
consisting of 366 detached single family units, 224 multi-
family units and 21 acres of commercial uses. The
residential construction is proposed to be developed in 9
ohases and the commercial development at a future time;
located on the south side of Iiighway 60, and south of
Western Knolls Drive, at the westerly City limits.
Applicant, John Thomas, Beaumont Associates.
Chairperson Burton noted that this public hearing was opened
prior to this hearing.
CDD koules noted that this item had been continued from the
October 4, 1988 hearing to allow the applicant's engineer to
address the conditions of approval, also, a letter from the
City Manager was distributed to the commission prior to the
meeting. Caltrans' comments were received by the Planning
Department on October 21, 1988, thus, the reason for not
being in the packets.
Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M., reconvening at 8:25 P.M.
Mr. John Thomas, 1202 Kroll Lane Huntington Beach,
addressed the commission commenting: his participation n
this meeting is to supply the commission with information;
will not be waiving any of the benefits which he may have
accrued as a result of violating the State Streamlining Act;
would not preclude Best, Best & Krieger acting as co-
counsel, Palmieri, and Tyler initiating a writ of mandate
proceeding.
Atr. Ryskamp noted that at this point a stipulation to
include the fact that any actions taken tonight are deemed
by all parties to have taken place on the 6th of September
with Mr. Thomas stating "yes."
Mr. Thomas, further speaking commented:
1) Minutes of October 4, 1988 reflected that he had
nf the conditions of approval which he
PC minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 5
2) Kunzman & Caltrans did a traffic study on this project
which was submitted to Mr. Bounds and Mr. Bounds in
turn submitted the study to Caltrans - approximately 1
1/2 years ago;
3) Biological survey was done on the property and
submitted to the City 11/19/87;
4) Complete plan survey and an animal survey on the
property done - City has a copy;
5) Mr. Bounds submitted a letter to Caltrans approximately
1 1/2 years ago stating their map complied with the
general plan, zoning and circulation element in the
City of Beaumont;
6) Meetings with Valerie Beeler, Mr. Bounds and the
engineers were had with the basic idea that everything
that was documented and recorded would be included in
the map;
7) Letter from Valerie Beeler subsequent to the date Mr.
Bounds submitted his letter to Caltrans and also states
the map coincides with the general plan, zoning
and circulation element;
8) Applications and work done on project were done so at
the instructions of both Mr. Bounds and Valerie Beeler.
Mr. Hubert Webb, Civil Engineer for the project, addressed
the commission commenting:
1) Was his understanding this project was going to be
presented to the commission on the basis of a tentative
map with certain issues being addressed by further
study;
2) Project was not going to have a full blown Specific
Plan EIR;
3) Traffic studies, biology, gas mitigation studies have
all come out during the processing of the plan as a
result of on -going discussion with City staff;
4) His understanding the major two issues involving
the project was Caltrans and is there, or is there not
wastewater capacity available to the project;
5) They understood when the project was going to be
presented to the Planning Commission and Council,
there was going to be a condition in the conditions of
approval indicating that this area would have to
participate in a study for a wastewater expansion as
well as the interchange situation because the City of
Beaumont has to be the lead agency;
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 6
b) Condition No. 1.03: If the City will furnish a
list of street names they will place them on the
map.
c) Condition No. 1.04: Agrees with this condition.
d) Condition No. 1.05: Opposed. This is a matter of
preference - either a solid block wall or leave
some opening with wrought -iron through this area
with a passage way.
e) Condition No. 1.06: Could be mitigated. 10' more
within the right of way within the tract boundary
or a road offer of 10' on the other side of the
road.
f) Condition No. 2: Believes this to be a legitimate
condition; however, on a lot of cases other
agencies do not require the typical section.
Attorney Ryskamp explained there was a question as to
whether this particular zone on the general plan required
a development plan or a specific plan and it was
the City's contention that the application was not completed
until the 29th of April 1988. He noted there was a meeting
in March with Mr. Thomas, his attorney, Mr. Webb, Mr.
Koules, Mr. Bounds, Mr. Dotson and himself and discussed at
length the requirements of the project, the need for a
Specific Plan vs. a Vesting Tentative Map and they arrived
at a list of additional items that needed to be submitted to
complete the application. When the last of these initial
items were submitted, they then had an application that was
complete; therefore, the City had one year from April 29th.
When an application is complete that does not mean you
cannot request additional materials - it means you have the
basic materials before you.
Mr. Thomas, commented that if you go over the development
standards for that zone and if you go over all the comments
and instructions that were given to them by Mr. Bounds and
Valerie Beeler for over 2 years, neither one of them ever
mentioned the fact that they had to do a Specific Plan. His
attorneys have reviewed all the documentation and they
disagree with the City's attorney and have requested that he
immediately file a writ of mandate proceeding.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 9:14 P.M., turning this
matter back to the commission for discussion.
Attorney Ryskamp noted for the record that Mr. Dotson be
allowed to address the issue pointing out that on July 21,
1987, he (Dotson) sent a letter which was subsequently
forwarded to the applicant specifically stating there wasn't
enough information at this point to make conditions of
PC ?linut-es
October 25, 1988
Page 7
the project
can work with
an EIR as
workable - in
noted also
application
specific plan
and 3) take no action recognizing that the City
the applicant until April 29, 1989 to complete
well as the other steps to make the project
which case it would be returned to staff. lie
that a fourth alternative could be that the
is not complete because there has been no
and return it to start all over again.
CDD Koules noted that the reviewing agencies in response to
the Notice of Preparation are of such magnitude that they
are going to involve an EIR and most likely a re- design of
the project and this understanding should be set forth.
On motion by
Commissioner
Schuelke, seconded by
Commissioner
Remy that this
application
87 -DP -1 and 87 -TM -3
be returned
to staff for
the purpose
of
working with the
applicant to
bring into
compliance
by
April 29, 1989,
based on the
finding that
it has come
to
us prematurely.
Attorney Ryskamp wanted it clarified as to whether the
application is not complete or if she (Commissioner
Schuelke) wanted staff to work with the application and
materials that they now have which was accepted as complete
on April 29, 1989, with Commissioner Schuelke stating
"both." Attorney Ryskamp then noted that the application
can be complete and still require extensive additional
materials - acceptable as complete in that it has the major
issues and yet require additional materials including a full
EIR.
Meeting recessed at 9:36 P.M., reconvening at 9:45 P.M.
CDD Koules informed the commission that April 29th was the
date that the phasing map was submitted and to use this as
the date of acceptance of a complete application. This then
would be consistent with the March 22nd meeting they had
with the applicant and his representatives. The EIR process
has already prompted some serious concerns and would have to
be reflected in some map revision. Further, he would do his
best to work with the applicant to bring this to a completed
project.
Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Thomas that she personally
felt that an EIR should be done. She noted that a motion
was on the floor which should be withdrawn or re- stated.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that the only thing that needed
to be corrected was rather than in reference to a Specific
Plan, request staff to work with the applicant to attempt to
complete work on the project by the one year dead -line date
which is April 29, 1989.
:Motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke and Remy.
iJ f1 G'R (`n mmicoinnnr Rrinc anr7 (`h�i rnnrcnn R��r4-n
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 8
10.
Attorney Gary tdobley One Newport Place, Newport Beach,
addressed the commission stating he was representing Adams
Advertising. He further commented: It was represented to
them that this was a denial and he confirmed this in a
letter to the City Clerk at the time they filed the appeal.
Has been treating this as an appeal of denied applications,
contrary to what Mr. Koules had indicated that they were not
received - presumption they are operating under.
Attorney Ryskamp then asked Mr. Mobley for clarification
since the applications were not accepted and not in the
City's files, if the copies being submitted were to be part
of the record.
Attorney Mobley presented the following documents to be made
a part of the record.
1) Pamphlet on Public Service Signs;
2) Pamphlet on Adams Style of Structure;
3) Library References S. 5226;
4) Copy of Order re: Prel. Injunction;
5) Copy of Opposition to Order to Show Cause;
6) Copy of PC Minutes dated 12/1/87;
7) Copy of Letter to Mr. Bisel dated 12/7/87'
8) Copy of CG Zoning Ordinance;
9) Copy of Declaration by Moses W. Johnson;
10) Eleven pictures of signs along freeway.
Attorney Mobley, explained that outdoor advertising differs
in a significant respect from on premise signs such as the
Travelodge sign. The difference being that on -site signs are
used almost exclusively as permanent commercial messages to
advertise a business or service, whereas, outdoor advertising
is available to the use by the public for a variety of
messages that can be both commercial and non - commercial -
therefore, it takes on the aspects of free speech. The
proposed signs they are proposing are not inconsistent with
uses of property that exists in the City of Beaumont. His
understanding is that the MC Zone is basically the only zone
that permits (on a permitted basis) outdoor advertising signs
and this is basically the only location left in the City of
Beaumont that is undeveloped along the highways or freeways.
Feels they are entitled to the applications on basically
three grounds:
1) Believes they comply with the strict requirements of the
hIC Zone classification 17.50.105. This Section indicates
that outdoor advertising signs are a permitted use. In
all other sections it is subject to site development
approval.
2 ) Doesn't feel that 17.60 Section applies to the MC Zone
PC Minutes
October 25, 1988
Page 9
it violates Sections 5526 and 5227 in the California Business
and Professions Code. If the City takes the position that no
signs are permitted within 500 ft. of the freeway, it is a
total prohibition of signs along the freeways and is
specifically pre- empted by the Outdoor Advertising Act. The
United States Supreme Court has recognized that Outdoor
Advertising is entitled to the first amendment of free speech
protection. Strongly believes that they have a right to
these signs and therefore, appealing to the commission to
issue these permits. will not have any adverse effect and
will not have any impact, certainly not any more significant
than a 55' Travelodge sign that was just approved.
CDD Koules commented that he reads Ordinance 17.60.015
literally which is the reason for the denial of acceptance of
the application and takes issue with Mr. Mobley's
interpretation.
Attorney Ryskamp commented that he disagrees with the freedom
of speech argument, but would like to have an opportunity to
review the material and bring back a response to the
commission.
Attorney Johnson commented that this matter be continued to
give them a chance to look at the legal argument - does not
want to comment without doing some research.
On motion by Commissioner Fries that this matter be
continued to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
November 15, 1988, in order to give Mr. Ryskamp time to give
an opinion pertaining to the state code.
CDD Koules wanted clarification as to the appeal to his
decision to not accept the application with Mr. Ryskamp
explaining the concern as to whether there was an appeal to
a denial of the request, or an appeal of a refusal to accept
the application. It is the City's contention that the
application was never accepted because it did not conform,
rather than having been specifically denied - was never
accepted as an appliation since fees were not collected.
Motion seconded by Commissioner Remy. Motion carried
unanimously with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Remy.
HOES: Chairperson Burton.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Reespeecctfull7y/ submitted,
//V ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
11V
3788 McCray Street • Riverside, California 92506 -2973
Telephone (714) 686 -1070
FAX (714) 788 -1256
AI BERTA WEBB - 1IBN-19Bq
ERNESTN WEBB- (1929 -1987)
A HUSERT WEBB HAROLD L. MABERRY
JOHN. STAAF DAVID M. ALORANTI
SAMI GERSHON RON BUCKLEY
JOHNJOROAN WALLACE H. RRANZ
MATTHEW E WEBB
October 24, 1988
TO: Planning Commission, City of Beaumont
SUBJECT: 87 -TM -3, TRACT 22563
APPLICANT: Beaumont Associates
Contact Person: John Thomas
21202 Kroll Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
APPLICANT'S
ENGINEER: Albert A. Webb Associates'
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Project Manager: A. Hubert Webb
HISTORY:
N.
REF. W.O. 81 -253
FILE NO,
The project site consists of approximately 160 acres located in
the western portion of the City of Beaumont upon which a development has
been proposed to consist of approximately 336 single-family detached lots,
224 units of multiple - family lots, 21.3 acres of special commercial, and
approximately 43 acres of open apace.
The project was originally proposed by the Applicant in
approximately 1979 through 1980. Discussions were held with City Staff
during this period to accomplish annexation to the City in order to
commence the planning process. From 1980 through the end of 1984 the City
and its consultants were preparing a General Plan. Shortly after the
adoption of the General Plan the City approved zone changes which were
consistent with the proposed Tentative Map. In 1985 Webb Associates had
meetings with the City Manager, City Engineer and Planning Director to
discuss the development concepts proposed by the Applicant. Some of the
factors discussed during these meetings are stated below:
1. Availability of water and sewer facilities.
2. Vehicular access from State Highway 60, as well as
improvements necessary on 4th Street east of the southeast
rc
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES - Cun,u ling Enginccn
Planning Commission, City of Beaumont
October 24, 1988
Page 2
3. Schedule of proposed time frames for processing of the
development.
During these meetings the City Manager indicated that the
City's existing wastewater treatment plant had approximately 200
equivalent dwelling unit capacity remaining and this capacity could be
made available for the site subject;to prior commitments.
Webb Associates continued to work on the site development
and had subsequent meetings with the City Manager and Engineer to discuss
in further detail the proposed project. The discussions included the
required street improvements for 4th Street, B Street, and A Street with
respect to the proposed freeway off ramp which would connect to A Street.
In addition, the matter of sewage treatment plant capacity was again
discussed and the City Engineer indicated that Webb should show an on -site
treatment plant, or as an alternative propose a sewer pump station which
would be utilized to pump sewage back to the City's existing treatment
plant. It was also discussed that in order to expedite the planning
review process that a Focus EIR could be prepared at a later date to
accompany an application to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for
the construction of an onsite treatment plant. This would be required in
the event the City was not capable of providing wastewater capacity to the
site. In addition, the City Staff indicated that the City would be the
lead agency for any applications to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, as well as a_'y negotiations required with CalTrans for the
construction of an overpass and off ramps in the vicinity of A Street.
However, these matters could be a condition of approval of the Tentative
Map and be resolved after the map was approved by the Planning Commission
and City Council.
During the review period by the City, the Staff requested
additional studies and information from the Applicant consisting of
traffic reports, biological assessment, and a geotechnical report, as well
as a gas mitigation report for an isolated area along the east tract
boundary located approximately 800' northerly of the southeast corner of
the proposed development. All of these studies were prepared and
submitted to the City Staff.
CONCLUSION:
BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF
NOVE14BER 15, 1988
The Planning Commission met in a Regular Planning Commission
Meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 1988, in the City Council
Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding.,
Meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M.
On Roll Call, the following commissioners were _ present:
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Chairperson Burton.
Commissioner Remy was excused.
Affidavit of Posting was read.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. The Minutes for the Special Planning Commission Meeting of
October 25, 1988, were approved as submitted.
i
2. Oral Communication: None
3. Director's Report: None.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
4. 87- PP -19, a proposed three (3) apartment units, located at
673 Massachusetts. Applicant, Howard Haig.
CDD Koules explained to the commission that the applicant
has not provided staff with a revised plot plan and
recommends continuing this matter to the Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of January 17, 1989. The applicant will
be so informed of this continuance and if submittal of his
plot plan is not received, then a new application will be
asked for as well as fees.
This matter was then continued by the commission to the
Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 1989.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. 88- ANX -3, 88 -RZ -5 and 88- ND -16, a proposed pre- annexation
zoning to RSF (Residential - Single Family) on 9.83 acres, APN
#406 - 110 -002, located on the west side of Sunnyslope Avenue,
about 350 feet north of its intersection with Cougar Way.
Applicant, Aware Development.
CDD Koules presented the staff report `:informing the
commission that it is a requirement that the property be
ore -zoned in order to go to LAFC for annexation. Applicant
is thinking of eventually building a:> single family
subdivision of 6000 s.f. lots that will be in conjunction
with owners to the west of this property. Feels that the
7.,.,A ,-prt„PGt fnt RSF is compatible with the concerns of the
PC Minutes
November 15, 1988
Page 2
Mr. Ro er Wilson, 6377 Riverside Ave., S
addressed the commission comment ng
Director of Development Marketing
Development and wanted to know if he
questions.
to 10
hat he was cne
Sales for Aware
could answer any
There being no questions, Chairperson Burton then closed the
public hearing at 7:11 P.M., again turning the matter back
to the commission.
After discussion, and on motion by Commissioner Fries,
seconded by Commissioner Bruner, recommendation by City
Council for approval of this proposed pre- annexation zoning
to RSF (Residential - Single Family) 88 -RZ -5 and Negative
Declaration 88 -ND -16 was made. Motion carried unanimously
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and
Chairperson Burton. -
NOES: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Remy.
6. 88 -TM -2 (Tract No. 23491) and 88- ND -17, for a proposed
subdivision consisting of eleven (11) lots of single family
homes, on 2.54 acres, APN #406 - 122 -012, located at the
northeast corner of Cougar Way and Sunnyslope Avenue.
Applicant, Ronald C. Hemsley.
CDD Koules informed the commission that the proposed
subdivision meets the general plan requirements of maximum
density of 5 du. to the acre (4.03 du /ac) and the lots do
meet the zoning for RSF, recommending approval of the
tentative map and the negative declaration.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:15
P.M., asking for proponents /opponents from the audience
wishing to speak.
Hatt Webb Webb Associates 3788 McCray St., Riverside,
addressed the commission noting they had reviewed the
conditions of approval prepared by staff and they have no
objection to any of the conditions; will answer questions.
John Wood, Supt. of Beaumont School District,
addressed the commission stating his concerns: traffic flow
on to Cougar Way with the high school parking lot located
immediately south of the project and the transportation and
maintenance yard which handles all the bus traffic located
on the southwest of this project; expressed concern
pertaining to the pedestrian traffic on Cherry Avenue and
the vehicle traffic coming from Beaumont Avenue on to Cougar
way; no traffic signal lights or stop signs other than
updating the existing sign on Sunnyslope and an additional
stop sign on Kirby Avenue cul -de -sac; approximately 3/4 mile
PC Minutes
November 15, 1988
Page 3
Matt Webb, again addressed the commission commenting: agrees
and recognizes the need for some traffic signals in the
area; could not afford to build a traffic .signal with only
11 homes involved; has a condition to pay a traffic signal
fee and when sufficient fees have been collected, it will be
used to pay for traffic signals; there is a requirement to
put stop signs at the end of their streets which extend into
Sunnyslope; the intent of this project is to create single
family homes for sale; no intent to keep as rental property;
is agreeable in placing a wooden fence along the street.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:25 P.M., turning the
matter back to the commission.
Platt Webb, commented that on Cougar 30' is the half street
width and the other 30' from the parcel to the west he
thought had already been dedicated to _ the City with
Commissioner Schuelke noting she would; like to have
verification of this. Mr. Webb then commented that this
could be added as a condition; explained that the 15' shown
on the map is a dimension to a proposed water line; will be
dedicating additional street right of way to the City after
recordation; explained paving will be 20' on their side of
the centerline plus additional paving on the other side
pursuant to City standards; believes there is a requirement
to pave 281.
CDD Koules commented that the two conditions that have been
discussed namely, 1) applicant shall
construct a 6' wooden
fence
along the easterly property line
of the project
and
2) A
30' right of way on Sunnyslope
Avenue represents
one -
half
of the ultimate right of way
could be added to
the
conditions of approval as 11 and 12.
Further, this is
the
legal
contract of conditions imposed
on the project.
Matt Webb, explained that the 20 feet is from the centerline
of the street to the face of the curb and then the sidewalk
is from the face of curb going towards the lots.
John ';7ood, asked if the commission has the option for
—requiring a three way stop at Sunnyslope and Cougar, with
CDD Koules noting that the overall view of the whole street
pattern needs to be considered to see if it fits the plan
for the circulation element.
CDD noted that crosswalks and stop signs can be put in at
some later date without being bound to this specific project.
Commissioner Schuelke noted that this matter should be
continued and give the school district members an
opportunity to discuss with the City Engineer their
concerns. She also would like to find out what is lacking
on the tentative map as well as the reason for the condition
where he (Dotson wishes to delete the 6' block wall.
I
PC Minutes
November 15, 1988
Page 4
Chairperson Burton noted that a request from Adams
Advertising had been received to continue this matter to
December 6, 1988.
CDD Koules explained that the last meeting was continued at
the request of the City Attorney for him to have a chance
to look at the constitutional issues involved. His memo
addresses point by point the objections raised by the sign
company's attorney. Mr. Ryskamp',was''unable to be'' here , due
to illness; however, his recommendation is!to sustain,,, the
Community Development Director's ''refusal;`-to ` accept' the
application.
CDD Koules further commented that Mr`:%' Ryskamp feels that he
has answered the objections raised.by "the attorney, for -, the
billboard company and the only issue'is whether the_ action
to deny receipt of the, application was correct or
incorrect - not merits or, demerits of the proposal.
It is Mr. Ryskamp's feelin�J as well as his (Koules) that
they were within the leg ?frame the ordinance to
deny the application.
Chairperson Burton noted that staff' "and Mr'i Ryskamp feels
that a continuance is not necessary.
CDD Koules noted that generally continuances are made on
matters that require approval review,; or the applicant,- was
not at the meeting to present his case.
Michael Slagle, speaking from the audience commented that it
has been his experience to give professional courtesy face
to face with the applicant. Legal ramifications not
withstanding.
Commission felt as a courtesy (since the request for
continuance was received), this item should be continued to
the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 6,
1988.
There being no further business before the commission, the
meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Pecr ry
i
BEAUMONT PLANNING COfll4ISSION
MINUTES OF
DI'CEnBER 6, 1938
.he Plannn
ig Ccnuaission met in a Regular Planning Commission
c. n on Tuosdav, December 6, 1988, in the City Council
Ch a:,r. s .:iCli Chairperson Burton presiding.
�;;as called to Order at 7:00 P.M.
of Posting was read.
On P..011 call, the following commissioners were present:
Comni.ssioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and Chairpersons
pur-"On.
"_'he Plec'.gc cf Allegiance to the Flag was observed.
1. ''he ;;inutcs for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of
;,ovember 15, 1938, were approved as submitted.
2. Oral Communication: None.
3. Director's Report: None.
CO :;TI ?lit U PUBLIC HEARING:
. S- 1 "; -2, (':'r. 23491), and 38- ND -17, a proposed eleven (11)
lot single family subdivision, located at the northeast
Corner of. Cougar Way and Sunnyslope Avenue. Applicant,
Ronald C. aei.1sley.
3788 McCray St., Riverside, addressed the
corimission noting that they submitted an additional Exhibit
A to the Planning Commission in hopes this will clarify the
construction that is anticipated with this tract; also there
'acre sane additional conditions that was requested at the
last po.bli.c hearing and the applicant has signed a letter in
agreement with those conditions which includes the
construction of a fence; dedicated right -of -way is 15' on
Lhe west side and they would be malting their 30' dedication
in aCC'.i.tion to this.
her being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton
then closed the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. turning the
u;atte;- bac'c to the commission for discussion.
There was much discussion pertaining to this project with
Chairnerson Burton reading Mr. Wood's letter dated December
1, 1983 (see attached) into the record. - Also amendments
were -made to the City Engineer's conditions No's 1.32, 4.04
and 5.01.
CDi) I;oules noted that t'he City Engineer recommends against
„„i -Finn a -,too sign in mid -block - doesn't feel that the
hlinuLor7 of PC "Ieeting
DeCcE,n0er 6, 1982
Page 2
T1: -2 (Tr. 2349
oI osee,. eleven
at the northeast
as uer staff's
approval to read
L) and Negative Declaration 88 -ND -17 for a
(11) lot single family subdivision located
Corner of Cougar Way and Sunnyslope Avenue
recommendations and amended conditions of
as follows:
Section 1 - Street Improvements
1,32 - Construct 5' -wide curb- adjacent sidewalk.
Section 4 - Traffic Control
rcplace existing STOP sign at the Northwest Corner
Of Cougar / Sunnyslope. Place new STOP sign at
:;irbv Court exit onto Cougar.
Section 5 - On -site Improvements
5.01 - Build 31- masonry wall along southerly sides of Lots
5 and G.
AY1:3: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
NOES: "done.
AB '11 . None.
ArSENT: :]one.
?OBLIC !Ir,ARINGS:
5, b - T'," -3, (Tr. 24030) and 88- ND -18, for a proposed nine (9)
lot single family subdivision on 2.69 acres, located south of
12th Street on Olive Street. Applicant, Carter Pendergrass.
CD') Koules presented the staff report commenting that the
n_000sal is to extend Olive Street south from 12th,
improving it to full requirements. Further, arrangements
have been agreed upon between the owners of the Three Rings
l:anch and tor. Pendergrass to accommodate the thru traffic.
Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:40
P.:?. as'.•:ing for proponents /opponents from the audience
r;is2iing to speak.
Carter Pence_rgrass, 12750 Wilmac Grand Terrace, addressed the
ccnu,tissi.on commenting that Mr. Koules had covered most
everything regarding the project.
Commissioner Schuelke asked if he (Mr. Pendergrass) had any
he;i'lation ;rith the condition regarding an easement for the
�roerty ✓itii him commenting that he did not have a problem
with this.
^.'here being no opponents, Chairperson Burton then closed the
public hearing at 7:42 P.M. turning the matter back to the
: ;.inuto; of PC Fleeting
Uecembcr 6, 1980
Page 3
Chairperson Burton noted that under Section 2 - Sewer
Improvements of the City Engineer's conditions - that the
proposed sewer facility shown thereon cannot be designed and
constructed to function to even minimurn requirements without
massive re- grading of the project site.
CDD i'oules noted that he felt the City Engineer meant it can
b corrected within the lot configurations that are proposed
and; if it could not be, he (City Engineer) certainly would
not reconu-nend approval of the map.
Commissioner Schuelke questioned Condition No. 1.08
to Olive tr.eet commenting that the pavement that exists is
in very poor condition and when it becomes a dirt road, it
has dips. She suggested all of Olive Street be paved.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Bruner, to recommend approval by City Council of Tract map
08 -7h, -3 (Tr. 24030) and Negative Declaration 88- ND -18, a
•cronosed nine (9) lot single family subdivision, located at
olive Street south of 12th Street, as per staff's findings
and amended conditions of approval to read as follows:
section 1 - Street improvements
1.03 - P.xisting Olive pavement shall be overlayed, with 1 "-
AC to northerly RCR of existing curb return from the
south side of Olive to Florence 7.venue.
tdotion carried with the following roll call vote:
`.Y ES, : commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Remy.
Chairperson Burton.
None.
None.
38 -RZ -3, SP -88 -1, and EIR 88 -1, a proposed pre -
anncNation zoning to Specific Planning Area Zoning (SPA 1
du /ac) which proposes 700 dwelling units on 737 acres and an
couostrian center APN #1's 421 -240 -001, 005, 009, 026, 027,
028, 029, 030, 023, 024, 025, 032, 033 and 034, located on
tlighl�.nd Springs Avenue, approximately 1 1/2 miles south of
Interstate 10. Applicant, Potrero Creek Estates.
CDD Koules informed the commission that staff's
recom:,.cnC,tion was for 4 actions pertaining to this project
an(I that the more detailed issues will be before the
co:112,1,ission again at the implementation stages.
commissioner Remy asked how this property could come into the
City without the property being contiguous to the City
bounc".ery .,!.itii Mr. Koules explaining that this project would
!)e conOitioned tentative to the ffovchild property coming in
- t'ne••will all eventually pull together, fie (Koules) also
,,.. -„1. , -, i- 1 -1,, 1 n�)R rngir ?nnen, nronnsed was at the time
I•Iinutes of PC Meeting
December 6, 1983
Page 4
anolication they have to have the EIR certified; will file
with LAFCO for the actual annexation after going through
the cortimission and city council; as the plan progresses,
com;nissio;i will have an opportunity to review the various
tentative caps; many different studies undertaken in the
E'a; breaks doom into a number of very different areas;
geologist feels the McInnes fault is not active - however,
it is being treated as an active fault for planning;
explained the density and footage of lots; will be
realigning highland Springs Road eliminating the sharp
curve; equestrian center will be open to the public as well
as resiclents; will be maintaining Potrero Creek in its
na -ural state with more planting; tailored the grading and
the street system to the terrain; proposing hiking and
equestrian trails that would flow through the site; all
detailed studies done; no endangered species on the site;
has a will serve letter from the water district contingent
on the water coming through from the pass; horses will be
boarded at the equestrian center.
7'ichard. 6lalacoff, Caltrans, 247 W. 3rd St., S. B., addressed
tae cornmissioo commenting that n
the state wats to reiterate
its concern of local corridors being built to take trips off
the freewav and relieve congestion - important issue at this
time and should be taken into consideration; looking for a
.stronger local circulation system and east /west corridors;
11o�es to see in the future an implementation of a
system to improve the local corridors.
Karen i;eifer- Cudney, Riverside County Fire, addressed the
co^uiiission noting that they are in complete agreement with
Caltrans; area is considered to be a high fire hazard area
and because of this they will be asking for fuel
modification and other things to be addressed at a later
date; problem now with this project and Hovchild's is they
need some circulation besides Highland Springs; City needs
to loot: into another location for another fire station on
the south side of town.
, enh Lapenski, P. 0. Box 2025, Riverside, addressed the
corm•,�..ission commenting that his concerns were that of ingress
and egress to the properties west of the Potrero Creels
Estates Section 22.
Chairnerson Burton informed Mr. Lapenski that the final EIR
did respond to his letter. Access to Section 22 will be
p ovided to the property line by the developer of Section 23
when the proposed project is complete.
Susan Fox, responded to Mr. Lapenski commenting that they
had done everything he ( Lapenski) wanted; had many meetings
with the fire department and are in agreement; handed out
County Circulation Plan (see attached); the Presley plan is
proposing a road that would go through the Presley project
and connect with First Street so First Street would be the
tlinutes of PC Dlecting
Decer.ibcr 6, 1983
Page 5
should be looked at, updated and revised and that the
Riverside County Fire District has stated to staff that they
are now working on a master plan to locate an additional
fire station on the south side of the City.
Commissioner Schuelke noted that if changes are not
incorporated into the projects of this size now, there will
be reel traffic problems later, once approved, it will be
hard to take back any access from projects in order to fit
the amendment to the Circulation Element. She was also
concerned about the lot sizes and general density for this
project.
CDD KOUles noted that we are approving 700 units on 737
acres to be distributed among the five planning areas - lot
sizes will have to be worked out.
On motion by Commissioner Fries, seconded by Commissioner
Bruner, recommending approval by City Council of the
Following:
1. Certify that the final EIR has been completed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and was oresented to the Commission who reviewed and
considered the information contained therein prior to
recoru;iending approval of this project.
?. Find that changes or alterations have been required in
and incorporated into the project which mitigate or
lessen the significant environmental effects as
identified. in the environmental impact report.
3. Approval of 88 -RZ -3 pre- zoning 737.1 acres to Specific
Planning Area (SPA) one - dwelling unit to the acre zoning
(SF?. 1 du /ac ) .
A. AdonLion of the attached Resolution PC -88 -01 of Approval
for Specific Plan 88 -01 (Potrero Creek Estates SP 88-
01), allowing a maximum of 700 single family homes on
737.1 acres and to include updated and revised maps.
tlotion carrie(1 unanimously with the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
aO,.S: None.
P.P,STA.1'1: None.
P. BS, EC;'P: [lone.
On motion by Commissioner Schuelke, seconded by Commissioner
Remy, recommending to City Council that they take a serious
look at amending the Circulation Element for all projects in
this area and to address the issue immediately, possibly
imoosinq a condition that Hiqhland Springs Avenue be at
1.linutes of PC fleeting
December 6, 1938
Page 6
Code Section 17.60.005, Advertising Regulations - Intent.
Chairperson Burton opened the public hearing at 9:50 P.M.
asking for proponents /opponents wishing to speak.
"aty Robinson informed the Commission that the purpose of
the amendment is to clarify the fact that there is no
cliscrimination between commercial and non - commercial
signing.
Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 9:51
P.Td. turning the matter back to the commission.
On motion by Commissioner Fries,
Bruner, recommending to City
amonc'.ment. to the Ordinance, repea
the Beaumont Municipal Code and
,i_inici_nal Code Section 17.60.005,
Intent.
seconded by Commissioner
Council they adopt the
Ling Section 17.60.005 of
adding to the Beaumont
Advertising Regulations -
Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
1'02S: None.
ABSTAT". None.
"lone.
CONTIt:U1'1) SCHEDULED MATTER:
5. Appeal of Community Development Director's decision
reference Outdoor Advertising Displays (Billboards) per
Section 17.60.015 of the Beaumont Municipal Code.
Atty Robinson distributed a copy of a letter dated December
6, 1980 to Mr. Ryskamp from Adams Advertising (see
attached).
Chairperson Burton noted that out of courtesy this item was
continued till December 6, 1988.
On motion by Commissioner Fries, seconded by Commissioner
Bruner to deny the appeal and sustain the objection of
anplications by the Community Development Director adopting
tiie follo� ring finding:
1) In t:-,e enforcement of the Ordinance the policy of the
City is and has been to encourage and support free
s_)eech including non - commercial speech in the
co;;u:iercial areas of the City and on -site advertising is
allowed to include non- corunercial messages.
otion carriecl unanimously with the following roll call
vot_.
AY: -,:,: Cor:niss.ioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, Remy and
Chairperson Burton.
b[inutcs of PC fleeting
December 6, 1983
Page 7
appropriatcly.
CDD Itoules noted that the plot plan expired as of October 8,
1918. it came before the commission in March or April in
error; subsequontly in that same month, Mr. Slagle was sent
a letter stating his permit would expire on october 8, 1988.
Stan Steele 13555 Plantation V1ay, Moreno Valley, addressed
the commission commenting they had been arranging for
itions of
financing; questioned as to whether the cond
aooroval runs from the date of approval by the commission or
at the City Council level; asking for consideration since
t'.-Iev have yet to go through a two year time lapse from the
ti:ae they c•;ero finally approved.
pttornc.v ]?obinson informed the commission that his basic
`eeling at. this point and time is, if you houedoSOOtthave
that is e1:hausted and the statute has run, y
,.ia authority to reinstitute and start over again.
CDC lcoules noted that in the past when we have had
eocumentation, the date of approval by the commission's
ac--ion, iias been the date we have been honoring.
Stan Steele, commented they would like some suggestions on
how to handle this in a timely manner so they do not lose
their -)anker while they are going through the process again
if that is what they have to do.
Attorney Robinson noted that the commission can act
granting extensions prior to the expiration of any p erm
CDD I:oulcs further explained that there was a
on
m.isundcrst, ing when Mir. Slagle requested an extension
th.c architectural design - when the letter came in it was
isinterruntczd as being a request to extend the plot plan.
It was brought before the commission, was clarified, with
the understanding that the plot plan was still valid till
^ctober 8, 1988.
';r. Steele, commented that it seems frustrating to them that
they attempted to get the extension and were told that they
could not do it at that time. Mr. Steele further asked if
this plot plan is resubmitted, would they have some type of
sentimental grandfather feeling because we have already
be, 0n, the =e.
Chairperson Burton informed Mr. Steele that if they meet all
recuirenents pertaining to the code and ordinances, there
was no way their project could be denied.
Slab e, commented that he wanted to point out that it is
a relatively low density project compared to most apartment
projects. By City code they were permitted up to 32 du /ac
BEAUMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
DANIEL CLINE
DR JERILYNN KAIBEL
WILLARD LOVE
RONALD PARTAIN
BENJAMIN UPTON
December 1, 1988
Beaumont Planning Commission
P.O. Box 158
Beaumont, CA 92223
�3 I.DtI�,
_ _ Cy00� O
Shalid CanuuiLifeat
Dear Members of the Beaumont Planning Commission:
JOHN WOOD
Di"ricl Superintendent
ROBERT GUILLEN
Director of Business
DR. WILLIAM STRATTON
Director of Curriculum
MARGOT ROWLEY
Director of Special Ed./
Staff Development
This written testimony is regarding the Public Hearing 88 -TM -2 (Tract #23491 and
88- ND -17) for a proposed subdivision consisting of 11 lots of single family homes,
located on 2.54 acres, APN #406- 122 -012, located at the northeast corner of Cougar
Way and Sunnyslope Avenue in which the applicant is Ronald Emsley.
I appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission at its hearing
on November 15, 1988. As suggested, I contacted City Engineer, Jim Dodson,
regarding traffic concerns that I had in that area. His feeling was that the
Planning Commission is able to make recommendations for the City Councils atten-
tion.
My suggestion is that a stop sign be installed at the "T" intersection between
Cougar Way and Sunnyslope Avenue. This is due to the high density of traffic
during specific periods in this area from the proposed development; student,
pedestrian and school traffic. Mr. Dodson's feeling was that the Planning
Commission could make this recommendation to the City Council, but that the City
Council would need to hold a Public Hearing regarding placement of a stop sign in
this area.
There is an existing pedestrian crosswalk at the corner of Sunnyslope and Cougar
Way. A stop sign would allow for safer pedestrian crossing in this area.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. mmou; j� Sincerely, �j NDD DEC 0 5 1988
John Wood CITY OF BEAUMONT
District Superintendent PLANNING DEPT.
JW:he
125 W. Fifth 0 P.O. Box 187 • Beaumont, California 92223 • (714) 845 -1631
//� ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
3188 McCray Street • Riverside, California 92506 -2973
Telephone (714) 686 -1070
FAX (714) 788 -1256
ALBERTA WEBB X11899 1981;
ERNEST N. WEBB
A HUBERT WEBB HAROLDL M�BiRRM �'
JOHN H STAFF DAVID M. ALGRANTI
SAM I. GERSHON WON B C LEFRAN2
JOHNJORDAN
MATTHEW E WEBB
Mr. Steve Koules,
City of Beaumont
P. 0. Box 158
December 2, 1988
Planning Director
Beaumont, CA. 92223
RE: Tentative Tract No. 23491
Dear Steve:
REF. W.0.88 -35
FILE N0. 3480.1
I have enclosed ten copies of an exhibit which I hope will
clarify the improvements to be constructed pursuant to Tentative
Tract No. 23491. Hopefully this exhibit will more adequately explain
this matter to the Planning Commissioners. It was my hope that these
exhibits could be distributed to the Commissioners prior to the
hearing scheduled for December 6.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES 0 V.1Gj
`i
Matthew E. Webb
Vice President
MEW:ah
Enc.
LETR2/88 -35
Civil Planning Environmental Surveying Assessment
DEC Uc '33 05:15 3DAC2 777 Pod
LAN! OFFICES
CASE, SCHROEDER, KNOWLSON, MOBLEY & BURNETT
A MiMnldNnly I'CL001A0 Pe.O /i;ikl0unl CIIRI.6Rn upRG
r),,m CL A. CALF'
ARTIIUR R. KNU40,5C1'I, JA.'
N sUHnLt J. 5CHt10[UTR'1
AIICHALL V/. BuuHI.TT'
G,A'1 5. LIVMWa'
BARRY A.'/GCH
R1CF A. CIUEL
1AIf;HAEL F VjnlflHl
STrPAES F. DIAL
AVARLIAE SILVER -0'IL5110cr.
EI.I2A6ElH PE'ILNROH HALL
S1rIUH10 A. SM11M
11,411 S. MARCUS
•A Fnnr; snloaAL coworMY00
IILCO 4PI1f:R O• ....P,V n"
VTA F'A.X
GIJC AIEWPORT PLACE., SUITE 8450
P(CWPORT OLACH, CAWrORHIA 09000
TELEPHOPIE (714) 91,G ^10SO
TELECOPICR 17140 051-911a
December 6, 1988
George R. Ryskampt Esq.
Beaumont city Attorney
c/o Ryskamp & Robinson
66o8 palm Avenue
Riverside, California 92506
L05 ANGELES
1000 AVENUE OF THE 6TAR9. SUITE 1000
105 ANGELES, CALITORHUL 00067
TELF.FROHE 12111 201.7486
JULICO14CR 12111 277-9341
Re: ADAMS ADVERTISING, INC. - CITY OF BEEAUMONT
AU-peal of Denial of Billboard permit Atlnli-ca ions
Dear Mr. RYSRamp:
This 1.5 to confi.rm our telephone conversation of December
6, 1988, concerning the above - referenced applications for billboard
permits currently on appeal before the Beaumont Planning commis-
sion. As you know, this matter is currently set for hearing this
evening.
I called to request this matter be continued because,
based on our prior discussions and the events that occurred at the
last Planning Commission hearing on this matter, Adams Advertising
was preparing and intends to submit later this weey variance
applications for the subject permits. While Adams Advertising does
not believe that the variance applications are even necessary, we
thought it would be most appropriate if the variance applications
were heard at the same time as the pending appeal so that all
issues could be addressed in the same proceeding.
During the course of our conversation, it became clear
that the parties apparently have a vastly different understanding
of the nature of the proceedings now pending before the planning
Commi.ssion. As stated in our Notice of Appeal dated september 22,
1998, our contemporaneous confirming letter to the City Clerk and
my comments to the Planning Commission at the last session, Adams
UEC. OE. '8R 05: 16 =UkC2
rr•r sus
George R. Ryskamp, Esq.
December 6, 1988
Page 2
Advertising has always been operating under the belief that the
present proceedings Constitute an appeal of the denial, of these
permit applications and the principal issue on appeal is the
substantive interpretation of the City's municipal Coda as to
whether my client is entitled to these permits as a matter of
right.
However, you stated that the City is taking the position
that the only issue presently pending before the Planning COmmi.s-
sion was the procedural issue of whether the Planning Director
properly refused to accent and process the permit applications.
You further stated that the Planning Commission's determination on
this issue will constitute a final administrative decision, which
Is not subject to review by the City Council or by any further
administrative proceedings.
Accordingly, you indicated that, since Adams Advertising
was intending to submit variance applications, these applications
would essentially render the present proceedings moot because the
applications would then be accepted and processed by the Planning
Department. you further stated that we Could address the substan-
tive issue of whether my client is entitled to the permits as a
matter of right in connection with the proceedings on the variance
applications.
I indicated that I had no objection to addressing
this substantive issue of whether a variance was even necessary in
the proceedings on the variance applications themselves, but wanted
it specifically understood that Adams Advertising was reserving its
right to assert this substantive argument and that the City would
not argus that Adams Advertising in any fashion had waived or is
estopped from raising the issue of the validity or applicability
of the setback requirements in connection with the variance
proeeedi.ngs. You gavo me such assurances.
Eased on the foregoing, we do not intend to appear at the
hearing tonight and instead request that this procedural issue be
heard and determined by the Planni.nc Commission. Instead, we will
be preparing an filing the variance applications, at which time we
will re- assert our argument that we do not believe the setback
requirement applies to the present applications.
DK 06 ' E.8 05: 21 MU C:2
George R. Rysk.amp, Esq.
December 6, 1926
Page 3
777 P[W
I would appreciate it if your office would bring this
letter to the attention of the Planning Commission at the hearing
tonight and request that it be made part of the record on appeal.
Many thanks for your courtesy in this regard.
Very truly yours,
CASE, SCHROEDER� KNOWLSON,
BLEY & BUR14ETT
Gar. Mobley, P.J,,•-'
i•
G« M /ld
ryks. ltr
I
FIGURE IV.4
n
u
F
"Mm
Y.I W
... ......Ii..
201
^.RS ?'i,,r',: None. r
.a...W11.N. w N.ns..Na.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
.WN n
GENERAL PLAN
==-- ^• -�-
CIRCULATION
r. ....
STUDY AREA S
=w
w•'. NN Nn. i�IY�Y
N.......N .
�. N.�.�« W w.M'.
Nom...
201
^.RS ?'i,,r',: None. r